GIFT    OF 


THE 

THEOLOGICAL  EDUCATOR. 


Edited  by  the 

REV.    W.    ROBERTSON    NICOLL,    M.A.,    LL.D., 

Editor  of"  The  Expositor" 


REV.    WILLIAM  HENRY  SIMCOX'S 
THE  LANGUAGE   OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 


NEW   YORK: 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

2  AND   3,    BIBLE   HOUSE., 

1890. 


THE 

THEOLOGICAL      EDUCATOR. 

EDITED    BY    THE 

REV.  W.  ROBERTSON  NICOLL,  LL.D.,  M.A. 
Foolscap  8vo,  2s.  6J.  each. 


A  Manual  of  Christian  Evidences.  By  the 
Rev.  C.  A.  Row,  M.A.,  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's. 

Fourth  Edition. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of 
the  New  Testament.     Fv  the  Rev.  Prof.  B.  B.  WAR 
FIKLD,  D.D.    Second  Edition. 

A    Hebrew   Grammar.      Bv  the   Rev.    W.   H. 

LOWE,  M.  A.,  Joint-Author  of  '  A  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms,"  etc.,  etc.  ;  He  rew  Lecturer.  Christ's  College, 
Cambridge.  In  Two  Parts.  Part  II.  preparing.  Second 
Edition. 

The    Prayer- Book.      By  the   Rev.    CHARLES 

HOLE,  B.A  ,  King's  College,  London. 
A  Manual  of  Church  History.     In  Two  Parts. 

By    the    Rev.   A.    C.    JENNINGS,    M.A.,   Author  of 

"  Ecclesia  Anglicana,"  etc. 
An   Exposition  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.   'By 

the   Rev.  J.   E.  YONGE,   M.A.,  late  Fellow  of  King's       I, 

College,  Cambridge ;    and   Assistant  Master   in  Eton 

College. 
An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    By     j 

the  Rev.  Prof.  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D.     Third  Edition. 
The  Language  of  the  New  Testament.     By 

the  Rev.  WILLIAM  HKNRY  SIMCOX,  M.A.,  late  Fellow 

of  Queen's  College,  Oxford,  etc. 
Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine.     By  the  Rev. 

H.  C.  G.   MOUI.E,   M.A.,   Principal  of  Ridley   Hall, 

Cambridge.     Third  Edition. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  By 
th"  Rev.  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  D.D.,  late  Bampton  Lec- 
turer, etc.  Preparing. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


BY    THE    I. ATE    REV. 

WILLIAM    HENRY   SIMCOX,    M.A., 

t* 

Rector  of  Harlaxton. 


NEW   YORK: 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

2   AND   3,    BIBLE   HOUSE. 

1890. 


PREFACE. 


rr^HIS  little  book  does  not  profess  to  be  a  complete 
-*-  grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek.  It  may  be 
a  question  whether  the  great  works  of  Winer  on  a 
large  scale  and  Buttman  on  a  smaller  leave  room  for 
a  competitor.  What  is  attempted  here  is  both  some- 
thing less  and  something  more :  to  indicate,  not  ex- 
haustively but  representatively,  the  points  wherein 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  differs  from 
classical  and  even  post-classical  usage :  to  classify 
such  differences  according  to  their  origin :  and  thus 
to  vivify  the  study  of  purely  verbal  grammar,  and 
bring  it  into  connection  with  wider  intellectual  interests 
and  sympathies. 

Moreover,  while  it  is  true  that  we  can  talk  about 
New  Testament  Greek,  as  one  form  of  the  language 
which  has  a  real  existence,  and  while  the  Greek 
Testament,  or  even  the  whole  Greek  Bible,  forms 
but  a  small  body  of  literature,  it  is  true  at  the  same 
time  that  every  biblical  writer — at  least  every  New 
Testament  writer — has  a  style  of  his  own,  and  often 

360200 


vi  PREFACE. 

grammatical  peculiarities  of  his  own,  so  that  the  works 
of  one  biblical  writer  may  differ  from  the  rest  quite 
as  much  as  from  those  of  secular  writers.  The  study 
of  these  individualities  brings  us,  more  perhaps  than 
the  study  of  the  Hellenistic  language  generally,  into 
contact  with  the  minds  of  the  evangelical  writers, 
and  so  gives  real  assistance  to  the  comprehension  of 
their  writings.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  distin- 
guish how  far  each  writer  (or  each  school  or  group 
of  writers)  shares  in  the  special  characteristics  of 
Hellenistic  or  biblical  Greek,  how  far  he  has  marked 
linguistic  features  of  his  own,  and  thus  to  give  the 
student  some  notion  of  the  extent  and  importance  of 
purely  grammatical  questions  in  dealing  with  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  hoped  that,  if  he  desires  to  pursue 
the  study  of  pure  grammar  further,  he  may  here  find 
an  introduction  to  the  subject  that  will  relieve  its 
apparent  aridity  and  want  of  interest ;  and  that  if  he 
does  not,  he  will  gain  a  just  notion  of  the  amount  of 
deference  due  to  grammatical  specialists,  and  will  be 
able  to  judge  on  what  questions  this  decision  must  be 
accepted  as  final,  and  on  what  questions  any  careful 
and  sensible  reader  has  a  right  to  think  for  himself. 

It  will  appear  that  I  take  a  large  view  of  this 
liberty  of  the  non-grammarian,  that  I  look  for  little 
gain  to  theology,  and  hardly  any  to  devotion,  from 
the  minute  verbal  study  of  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament.  Even  were  it  otherwise,  a  book  like  this 
is  intended,  of  course,  neither  as  a  theological  nor  a 


PREFACE.  vii 

devotional  manual.  Yet  it  would  be  wrong  to  treat, 
or  to  encourage  students  to  treat,  even  a  study 
subsidiary  to  theology  otherwise  than  reverently :  and 
it  is  impossible,  and  hardly  desirable,  to  form  a  judg- 
ment on  points  of  verbal  criticism  that  shall  not  be 
coloured  by  the  opinions  and  feelings  on  deeper 
subjects  of  the  person  forming  it.  While  I  had 
no  call  to  enter  on  controversial  topics,  I  have  not 
been  careful  to  avoid  expressing  an  opinion  where  one 
seemed  called  for,  even  if  it  had  a  controversial  bear- 
ing, or  rested  on  grounds  open  to  controversy. 

The  books  that  I  have  made  most  practical  use  of, 
and  had  most  constantly  in  my  hands,  were  Winer's 
"Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek,"  in  Dr.  Moulton's 
Translation,  and  Grimm's  "  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament"  in  Professor  Thayer's  version.  Winer  has 
never  been  superseded,  though  his  work  is,  to  some 
extent,  obsolete  in  form,  as  when  he  first  wrote, 
it  was  necessary  to  prove  that  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament  was  a  real  language  that  had  a 
grammar,  not  a  jargon  in  which  any  construction, 
any  case  or  tense,  any  particle  or  preposition  might 
be  used  instead  of  any  other.  I  have  found  more  use 
in  Professor  Thayer's  own  Indices,  than  in  what  the 
Lexicon,  as  such,  adds  to  ordinary  Greek  Lexicons  on 
the  one  hand,  and  to  a  concordance  on  the  other. 
But  I  have  given,  as  a  rule,  greater  proportional 
attention  to  points  that  struck  me  in  my  own  reading, 
than  to  such  as  T  only  noticed  when  my  attention 


viii  PREFACE. 

was  called  to  them  by  grammarians.  I  believe  this 
to  be  right  in  principle,  especially  when  it  was  less 
my  object  to  expound  the  subject  exhaustively  than 
to  rouse  a  living  interest  in  it.  The  student  will 
know  grammar  best  who  does  most  to  construct  a 
grammar  for  himself ;  and  it  was  by  doing  this  that 
I  could  best  help  others  to  do  it.  For  this  reason, 
among  others,  I  have  rarely  quoted  authorities.  I 
will  ask  critical  readers  to  believe  that  it  was  neither 
because  I  spared  the  labour  of  consulting  them,  nor 
because  I  desired  to  conceal  obligations  to  them ;  but, 
apart  from  the  necessity  of  economising  space,  I 
sometimes  made  out  from  my  own  notes  what  I  could 
have  taken  ready-made  from  a  pre-existing  work,  and 
sometimes  could  ill  distinguish  how  much  was  taken 
from  one  and  how  much  from  the  other. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  not  the  advantage  of 
an  idiomatic  knowledge  of  modern  Greek.  When, 
therefore,  I  have  occasion  to  make  a  statement  about 
modern  usage,  unless  it  be  something  quite  obvious 
and  notorious,  I  generally  refer  to  my  authority. 

I  ought  perhaps  to  apologise  for  an  inequality  in 
different  parts  of  the  bcok,  in  the  fulness  with  which 
illustrative  references  and  quotations  have  been 
supplied.  There  are  subjects  where  a  complete 
enumeration  of  all  relevant  passages  seems  essential ; 
there  are  others  where  a  few  typical  examples  will 
suffice:  and  in  the  latter  case,  if  much  more  than 
the  sufficient  minimum  be  supplied,  there  is  a  risk 


PREFACE.  ix 

that  any  but  the  most  painstaking  students  will  feel 
that  they  cannot  see  the  wood  for  the  trees.  I  have 
therefore,  deliberately,  sometimes  tried  to  give  ex- 
haustive lists,  and  sometimes  left  it  to  painstaking 
students  to  find  parallels  to  one  or  two  typical  passages. 
But  I  feel  no  confidence  that  my  judgment  has  always 
been  right,  or  my  practice  consistent  with  itself  in 
treating  a  subject  by  one  or  other  method. 

The  above  was  written  by  my  brother,  but  not  finally 
revised  for  press,  at  the  time  when  the  MS.  was  sent 
to  the  publishers.  It  has  been  necessary  to  make  one 
or  two  verbal  alterations  and  omissions.  One  or  two 
sentences  on  p.  vi  refer  to  a  Second  Part,  describing 
the  characteristics  of  New  Testament  writers  and 
comparing  specimen  passages  of  New  Testament  and 
Hellenistic  Greek,  which,  though  completed  for  press, 
was  reserved  for  subsequent  publication,  as  it  exceeded 
the  limits  of  the  series. 

At  the  time  of  his  death  the  author  had  passed  two 
sheets  for  press;  he  had  also  practically  completed 
the  revision  of  four  more;  for  the  remainder  I  am 
responsible.  The  very  few  alterations  and  additions  I 
have  ventured  to  make  are  almost  all  marked  by 
square  brackets.  It  only  remains  to  acknowledge 
with  thanks  the  valuable  assistance  received  from 
the  kindness  of  Mr.  F.  E.  Thompson,  M.A.,  of 
Marlborough  College,  who  has  found  time  to  read 
every  sheet  carefully. 

G.  A.  SIMCOX. 
September  1889. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGE 
PREFACE      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .V 

INTRODUCTION.— THE    GREEK    NATION    AND    LANGUAGE 

AFTER   ALEXANDER 1 

CHAP.    I.    THE   LANGUAGE   OF   THE    JEWISH    HELLENISTS      11 

„  II.  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 
IN  THE  FORMS  OR  INFLEXIONS  OF — 

(i)   NOUNS — 

(A)  PROPER  .     23 

(B)  APPELLATIVE         .         .         .30 

(C)  ADJECTIVE     .         .         .         .32 

(ii)  VERBS 33 

(ill)   PARTICLES,  AND   COMPOSITION  OF  VERBS         42 

„  III.  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 
IN  THE  SYNTACTICAL  USE  OF  ARTICLES  AND 
PRONOUNS 45 

„  IV.  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 
IN  THE  SYNTACTICAL  USE  OF  NOUNS — 

(A)  SUBSTANTIVE  .  .  .  .74 

(B)  ADJECTIVE       .  .  .  .91 


xii  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  V.  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK 
IN  THE  SYNTACTICAL  USE  OF  VERBS  AND 
PARTICIPLES — 

(A)  THE  VOICES  ,  .  .  .95 

(B)  THE  TENSES  OP  THE  INDICATIVE         .       97 

(C)  THE      SUBJUNCTIVE      AND     OPTATIVE 

MOODS,  AND   THE  INDICATIVE  IN 
RELATIVE    SENTENCES          .  .    106 

(D)  THE     IMPERATIVE    AND     INFINITIVE 

MOODS    .....    114 

(E)  THE   PARTICIPLES  .  .  .    122 

„     VI.    USES     AND     MEANINGS,      CHARACTERISTIC     OF 
THE   NEW   TESTAMENT,    OF   PARTICLES — 

(A)  PREPOSITIONS         ....    136 

(B)  CONJUNCTIONS         .  .  .  .160 

(C)  RELATIVE    ADVERBS— CONDITIONAL, 

FINAL,   ETC.      ....    169 
(I))   NEGATIVE        AND        INTERROGATIVE 

PARTICLES         .  .  .  .181 

,,    VII.    MISCELLANEOUS     FEATURES     OF     NEW     TESTA- 
MENT  GREEK 194 

INDEX   OF   TEXTS   CITED          ...  .    205 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE    GREEK    NATION    AND    LANGUAGE    AFTER 
ALEXANDER. 


opinion  was  divided,  and  pos- 
terity  has  disputed,  whether  the  conquests  of 
Alexander  the  Great  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  ruin 
of  Greece  or  as  the  triumph  of  Greece.  The  answer 
will  depend  on  what  we  understand  by  "  Greece  "-- 
whether  we  regard  the  true  glory  of  the  Greek  nation 
as  lying  in  its  civic  liberties,  or  in  its  intellectual 
influence  on  the  world.  The  "  victory  at  Chseronea  " 
9vas  no  doubt  "  fatal  to  liberty  ''  in  ohe  sense  :  but  it 
is  not  therefore  self-evident  that  it  must  have.  been  a 
"  dishonest  victory  "  —  one  that  the  world,  or  even  an 
enlightened  Greek  patriot,  ought  to  regret  or  lament. 
In  the  eyes  of  contemporaries,  the  character  of  the 
Macedonian  conquest  turned,  to  a  great  extent,  on 
the  right  of  the  conquerors  to  be  regarded  as  Greeks 
themselves.  A  modern  historian  is  tempted  to  treat 
this  question  as  a  meaningless  piece  of  superstition  : 
but  so  far  as  it  has  a  meaning,  the  true  answer  is 
that  the  Macedonian  kings  were  Greeks,  though  the 
Macedonian  people  were  not.  Whether  the  legends 
of  the  Temenids  Caranus  and  Perdiccas  be  at  bottom 
historical  or  no,  the  fact  that  they  were  told  and 

1 


TESTAMENT. 


believed  was  a  real  historical  influence.     There  is  no 
appeal  from  the  judges  at  Olympia  (Hdt.  Y.  xxii)  to* 
modern  criticism,  but  Philip  must  be  allowed  to  be 
a  Greek  by  descent,  for  three  generations  if  for  no 
more. 

Philip  was  inde3d,  like  Peter  the  Great,  the  king 
of  a  barbarous  people  ;  and,  like  Peter,  he  was  a 
brutal  barbarian  in  his  personal  habits.  But  he  was 
as  far-sighted  a  statesman  as  Peter,  and  as  sincere 
in  his  appreciation  of  the  culture  of  his  civilised 
neighbours.  Having  spent  much  of  his  youth  as  a 
hostage  at  Thebes,  he  may  be  called  a  Greek  by 
education  as  well  as  by  blood  :  and  he  earned  by  war 
and  diplomacy  a  title  to  the  most  sacred  privileges  of 
a  Greek,  .when,  after  the  so-called  Sacred  War  against 
the  Phocians,  he  was  admitted  to  their  forfeited  place 
in  the  Amphictyonic  Synod  of  Delphi  and  Thermopy- 
lae. It  was  the  possession  of  these  common  sanc- 
tuaries, the  right  of  common  worship  there  for  Dorians, 
lonians,  Achseans,  Thessalians  and  the  rest,  that 
gave  to  all  Greeks  a  centre  and  a  sanction  for  the 
sense  of  a  common  nationality,  though  they  belonged 
to  independent  and  often  hostile  states.  If  there 
ever  was  a  king  of  all  Greece  after  the  time  of 
Agamemnon,  it  was  the  Delphian  Apollo.  A  human 
"  king  of  Grecia  "  (Dan.  viii.  21)  only  became  possible, 
when  an  earthly  king  was  able  to  enlist  on  his  side 
the  loyalty  of  Greeks  to  their  god. 

In  Alexander's  character,  barbarism  and  high  genius 
were  even  more  strangely  mixed  than  in  his  father's. 
Scratch  the  Macedonian,  and  you  found  the  Thracian  : 
but  the  overlaying  was  of  gold  as  pure  as  adorned  the 
image  of  Olympian  Zeus.  The  man  was  as  extraor- 


EFFECTS  OF  ALEXANDER'S  CAREER.     3 

diiiary  as  his  deeds.  A  hero  of  romance,  he  was  one 
of  the  three  or  four  greatest  generals  of  history  ;  an 
adventurer,  and  by  no  means  an  unselfish  one,  he  was 
the  devoted  champion  of  the  cause  of  human  progress; 
a  conqueror  in  the  name  of  a  national  fanaticism, 
he  was  the  first  of  men  to  conceive  the  unity  of  the 
civilised  world  as  something  higher  than  nationality. 
From  different  points  of  view,  we  may  compare  him 
with  Mahomet  and  with  Charlemagne :  and  it  would 
be  hard  to  deny  that  the  armed  apostle  of  Hellenic 
culture  was  as  sincerely  devoted  to  his  cause  as  the 
armed  apostles  of  monotheism  a  thousand  years  later. 
We  are  told  by  contemporaries  (Aesch.  de  Fals.  Ley. 
42.  47,  etc.)  that  Philip,  with  all  his  brutality,  exer- 
cised a  singular  charm  over  men  who  came  into 
personal  contact  with  him.  Alexander's  personal 
charm  is  so  much  greater,  that  it  has  almost  won 
condonation  for  his  faults  and  crimes,  which  were 
not  slight,  from  every  generation  for  two  thousand 
years. 

Worn  out  between  the  violent  exertions  of  his 
active  life,  and  the  intemperance  which  was  more 
and  more  his  chief  relaxation  from  them,  Alexander 
died  at  Babylon  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign. 
As  an  empire,  his  empire  all  but  died  with  him.  His 
half-brother  and  his  infant  sons  were  mere  puppets  in 
the  hands  of  his  generals,  arid  were  before  long  mur- 
dered, and  the  royal  family  exterminated.  But  his 
twelve  years'  reign  had  sufficed  to  change  the  face  of 
the  world,  and  to  modify  the  inner  spirit  of  its  life,  more 
than  any  other  equal  period  in  history,  unless  it  be 
that  from  the  Edict  of  Milan  to  the  Council  of  Nice.* 
*  Posterity  must  judge,  if  the  period  from  the  meeting  of 


4     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Henceforth,  Greek  political  life  had  no  longer  the 
interest  that  it  had  had  for  the  world.  Agis  and 
Cleomenes,  Aratus  arid  Philopceinen,  were  not  neces- 
sarily inferior  men  to  Pericles  or  Epaminondas  ;  but 
they  had  no  longer  a  chance  of  such  great  careers. 
What  political  life  there  was  flourished  mostly  in  the 
cities  whose  past  history  had  been  least  conspicuous  : 
and  there  it  was  a  necessary  and  difficult  condition  of 
political  success,  to  secure  the  non-intervention,  or  if 
possible  the  friendliness,  of  the  dominant  Macedonian 
dynasty  of  the  moment.  It  was  a  century  and  a  half 
before,  under  Roman  pressure,  the  politics  of  Greece 
became  merely  municipal :  but,  from  the  end  of  the 
Lamian  war,  the  vital  interest  of  Greek  history  lie.s 
elsewhere.  For  the  literary  greatness  of  Athens 
hardly  outlasted  its  political  greatness.  The  last 
eminent  Athenian  writers — Menander,  Epicurus, 
Demetrius  of  Phalerum — belong  to  the  generation 
that  were  children  at  the  time  of  Chaeronea  or  of 
Cr^nnon. 

For  more  than  twenty  years  after  Alexander's  death 
— for  eight  or  nine  after  the  extinction  of  his  dynasty 
— a  confused  and  purposeless  struggle  went  on  between 
the  various  Macedonians  who  had  gained  distinction 
or  influence,  either  as  officers  in  his  army,  as  satraps 
in  his  empire,  or  as  regents,  more  or  less  legitimately 
authorised,  for  his  heirs.  At  the  battle  of  Ipsus  in 
Phrygia,  B.C.  301,  Antigonus,  who  alone  of  these  pre- 
tenders appeared  to  have  any  chance  of  securing  the 

the  States  General  to  the  establishment  of  the  Consulate  be 
worthy  to  be  ranked  with  these.  The  changes  of  the  Renais- 
sance and  the  Reformation,  certainly,  were  spread  over  a 
greater  length  of  time. 


PARTITION  OF  ALEXANDER'S  EMPIRE,     o 

united  empire,  was*  defeated  and  slain ;  and  a  parti- 
tion was  agreed  upon  among  the  victors,  which  made 
some  approach  to  a  permanent  settlement.  Ptolemy 
the  son  of  Lagus — or,  as  some  said,  an  illegitimate  son 
of  the  great  Philip — became  king  of  Egypt.  Lysi- 
machus  reigned  in  Thrace  and  the  north-western  part 
of  Asia  Minor,  and  for  a  time  occupied  Macedonia 
itself ;  but  he  did  not  found  a  dynasty  of  any  per- 
manence :  Macedonia  soon  passed  into  the  hands  of 
the  descendants  of  Antigonus.  The  greater  part  of 
the  Asiatic  territory — the  main  body  of  the  conquered 
Persian  empire — was  held  by  Seleucus,  the  son  of 
Antiochus  and  Laodice,  the  seat  of  his  rule  lying  first 
at  Babylon,  afterwards  in  Syria.  Asia  Minor  partly 
belonged  to  the  Seleucid  empire,  but  in  it  were  various 
kingdoms  of  lower  rank,  under  princes  Greek  or 
Macedonian,  native  or  even  Persian.  And  while  none 
of  these  could  rank  as  co-ordinate  with  the  kings  of 
Macedonia,  Egypt,  and  Syria,  a  fourth  power  of  still 
greater  extent  and  longer  endurance  grew  up  in  the 
further  East.  At  first,  there  existed  a  Greek  kingdom 
in  Bactria ;  but  this  was  first  isolated  and  at  last 
overthrown,  and  the  eastern  half  of  the  Seleucid 
kingdom  detached,  by  the  independence  and  growth  of 
the  Parthians  under  the  native  dynasty  of  Arsaces. 
Arid  in  each  of  these  more  or  less  Hellenised  kingdoms 
there  was  a  continuation,  if  not  of  the  vigour  of 
political  life,  at  least  of  the  civilisation  and  literary 
cultivation  which  in  "  Greece  proper "  had  run  its 
course.  It  seems  that  the  native  language  of  Mace- 
donia itself,  which,  though  very  likely  cognate  with 
Greek,  was  never  recognised  as  a  Greek  dialect,  now 
died  out  more  or  less  rapidly  and  completely,  and  was 


6     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

replaced  by  Greek.*  The  Macedonian  kings,  at  any 
rate,  could  no  longer  be  regarded  as  mere  barbarians, 
as  had  been  not  unreasonable  when  Perdiccas  aspired 
to  hold  the  balance  between  Sparta  and  Athens,  and 
not  impossible  when  Demosthenes  confronted  Philip. 
In  Egypt,  the  able  -kings  of  Ptolemy's  race  and  name 
had  on  the  one  hand  succeeded  in  identifying  them- 
selves in  the  popular  mind  with  the  ancient  religion 
and  the  ancient  national  monarchy  :  on  the  other 
hand,  they  made  their  Greek  capital  Alexandria  the 
home  of  Greek  learning — of  a  piogressive  Greek 
science,  such  as  had  hardly  existed  before,  as  well  as 
of  a  Greek  literary  revival,  which  holds  a  respectable 
place  among  renaissance  literatures.  In  the  kingdom 
of  Asia  or  Syria,  in  like  manner,  though  native 
languages  continued  in  use,  they  were  overspread  by 
a  stratum  of  Greek  culture.  The  numerous  cities 
named  Antiochia,  Seleucia,  Laodicea  or  the  like,  over- 
shadowed or  rivalled  the  older  capitals :  and  Greek 
proper  names  became  common,  at  least  as  duplicates, 
even  among  men  who  kept  their  old  language  and  a 
good  deal  of  their  old  national  spirit,  f  Even  among 
the  Parthians,  though  the  strength  of  the  monarchy 
and  the  origin  of  the  dynasty  itself  were  barbarian, 
Hellenic  influence  was  by  no  means  absent.  Its 

*  It  is  doubtful  whether  Polybius  would  hare  considered 
the  Macedonians  a  Greek  people,  in  a  sense  that  the  Latins 
were  not.  But  certainly  the  diplomacy  of  his  day  regarded 
them  as  a  Greek  power:  and  Liv.  XXXI.  xxix.  15  shows 
what  was  the  character  of  the  people  in  the  historian's  day  at 
any  rate,  if  not  at  the  time  he  writes  of. 

f  An  extreme  instance  is  furnished  by  the  Hyrcauus, 
Aristobulus,  Alexander,  etc.,  whom  we  find  in  the  Hashmonean 
dynasty,  of  which  the  very  rafaon  d'etre  wa&  the  champion- 
ship of  the  national  spirit  against  Hellenism. 


MODIFICATION  OF  GREEK  LANGUAGE,    1 

existence,  and  at  the  same  time  its  shallowness,  is 
well  indicated  by  the  grim  story  of  the  performance 
of  Euripides'  Bacchse  at  the  wedding-feast  of  Pacorus. 

And  thus  the  Greek  language,  which  had  been  a 
group  of  dialects  spoken,  and  sometimes  written,  in 
the  cities  and  districts  on  the  two  sides  of  the  ^Egsean 
and  Ionian  seas,  became  henceforth  the  language  of  at 
least  half  the  civilised  world — the  language  of  govern- 
ment, commerce,  and  literature  throughout  the  eastern 
half  of  the  Mediterranean  basin.  A  change  like  this 
could  not  take  place  without  a  certain  amount  of 
change  in  the  Greek  language  itself.  Until  now,  the 
literary  Greek  of  every  community  had  been,  as  a 
rule,  the  spoken  dialect  of  that  community  itself ;  or 
if  not,  then  the  dialect  of  the  community  in  which 
that  form  of  literature  had  first  flourished.  But  the 
mere  existence  of  a  literature  tends  to  fix  and  stereo- 
type the  hitherto  plastic  usages  of  language,  and  to 
render  obsolete,  or  to  brand  as  incorrect,  the  diver- 
gences of  dialect.  Only  four  or  five  *  of  the  Greek 
dialects  had  been  used,  to  any  important  extent,  for 
literary  purposes;  and  only  one  of  these,  the  Attic, 
had  been  used  for  a  variety  of  purposes,  both  in  prose 
and  poetry,  and  had  continued  in  active  literary  use 
down  to  the  time  we  speak  of,  the  time  of  the  world- 
wide diffusion  of  Greek  influence. 

In  consequence,  it  was  a  modified  form  of  the  Attic 
dialect  which  became  the  prevalent  Greek  of  the  new 
period.  Some  of  th'e  most  distinctively  local  Atticisms 

*  Besides  the  Attic  and  the  Ionic  of  Asia  Minor,  we  have 
the  ./Eolic  of  the  early  lyric  poetry,  the  Doric  of  that  form  of 
choral  poetry  known  to  us  by  the  chorus  of  the  Attic  drama, 
and  the  Boeotian  of  Pindar,  which  is  hardly  quite  identical 
with  the  last  of  these,  and  still  less  with  the  third. 


8     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NKW  TESTAMENT. 

were  dropped  more  or  less  completely.  Certain  words 
varied  more  or  less  from  the  Attic  standard  in  pro- 
nunciation or  in  meaning  :  tendencies  to  the  simplifi- 
cation and  softening  of  the  sound  of  words,  and  of 
grammatical  forms,  which  had  declared  themselves  in 
the  later  Attic  itself,  were  carried  further,  or  became 
universal  :  while  a  few  forms  and  usages  characteristic 
of  other  dialects  were  more  or  less  widely  adopted. 
Still  the  "  common  "  or  "  universal  dialect,"  the  literary 
language  of  the  new  Greece  coextensive  with  the 
Alexandrine  empire,  is  substantially  a  form  of  Attic. 
But  while  this  conventional  language  came  into 
universal  use  as  the  language  of  prose  literature,  and 
of  intercourse  among  educated  men,  it  was  impossible 
but  that,  in  a  language  so  widely  spread,  a  tendency 
to  dialectical  variation  should  assert  itself  afresh. 
There  are  some  traces  of  such  a  tendency  even  among 
purely  Greek  communities:  for  instance,  of  distinctively 
Alexandrian  grammatical  forms,  which  are  not  likely 
to  have  been  native,  and  are  not  proved  to  have 
existed,  in  any  of  the  Greek  or  Macedonian  communi- 
iiities  from  which  the  citizens  of  Alexandria  were 
derived/-'  But  still  wider  variations  necessarily  arose, 
when  Greek  came  into  use  as  an  official  or  commercial 
language  among  nations  still  using  their  native  lan- 
guages— languages  often  of  quite  different  genius  and 
structure  from  Greek.  The  Lingita  Franca  of  the 
Levant,  the  Pigeon  English  of  the  Chinese  ports,  and 
the  dialects  of  English  and  French  spoken  by  negroes 

*  The  3rd  pi.  of  preterites  in  -ovav  was  said  to  be  originally 
Boeotian  or  Chalcidian,  though  inscriptions  fail  to  prove  it. 
Anyhow,  it  was  probably  from  other  causes  than  Boeotian  or 
Chalcidian  settlement  that  it  waspopu'ariscd  at  Alexandria: 
see  pp.  36-7. 


ESPECIALLY  AS  rSED  BY  BARBARIANS.     9 

in  the  West  Indies,  show  how  utterly  a  language 
may  be  disguised  and  disintegrated  when  it  comes  to 
l:e  used  under  such  circumstances.* 

In  these  instances,  no  doubt,  the  transformation  of 
the  language  is  carried  further,  because  those  who 
use  it  are  uneducated  men,  and  acquire  it  only  for 
worldly  purposes,  without  any  intellectual  interest. 
But  liberal  education  and  intellectual  purpose  will 
not  always  suffice  to  secure  to  men  a  perfect  and 
sympathetic  insight  into  the  spirit  and  usage  of  a 
language  not  their  own.  It  is  doubtful;  but  it  is 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  impossible  to  ascertain, 
whether  the  purest  Latin  of  an  elegant  modern 
.scholar  would  have  passed  muster  in  a  Roman  literary 
circle.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  what  is  called 
"  Baboo  English  " — the  English  spoken  or  written  by 
the  first  generation  of  natives  of  India  well  trained 
in  British  literature — has  sometimes  been  almost  as 
grotesque  as  the  colloquial  dialects  begotten  between 
uneducated  Englishmen  and  uneducated  foreigners. 
We  may  suspect  that  there  were  in  ancient  times 
Hellenised  Orientals  whose  language,  though  it  seems 
fairly  correct  to  us,  was  felt  by  contemporaries  to 
be  either  incorrect,  or  pedantic  in  its  correctness. 
There  are  one  or  two  extant  writers, t  on  whose 

*  One  may  guess  that  it  was  from  the  observation  of  similar 
cases,  that  grammarians  thought  it  plausible  to  derive  o-6Xot/cos 
(a  word  in  tolerably  esrly  use)  from  the  name  of  the  town  of 
Soli  in  Cilicia.  There  had  been  an  early  Greek  settlement 
there,  far  from  Greece  in  the  geographical  sense  ;  and  it 
seemed  natural  to  suppose  accordingly,  that  that  must  have 
been  an  early  home  of  bad  Greek. 

f  It  may  have  been  this  kind  of  pedantry  that  prevented 
Josepus,  despite  his  laboured  classicalisni  of  style,  from 
gaining  the  attention  of  the  classical  world  ;  though  even 


10     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

style  we  should  be  glad  to  have  the  judgment  of  a 
competent  contemporary  critic. 

These  circumstances — -the  modernising  tendencies 
of  the  Greek  language  itself,  the  stiffening  of  literary 
Greek  into  something  distinct  from  the  spoken  lan- 
guage, and  the  greater  or  less  modifications  of  its 
form,  when  it  came  to  be  spoken  and  written  by 
"  barbarians  " — are  real  justifications,  apart  from  the 
prejudice  of  a  narrow  "  classical  "  education,  for  our 
regarding  the  Greek  writers  after  Alexander  as  less 
"  classical  "  in  style  than  those  of  earlier  date.  But 
it  does  not  follow  that  their  matter  is  of  less  value. 
Certainly  there  is  one  form  of  the  post- Alexandrine 
cr  post-classical  Greek,  and  that  one  in  which  the 
non-Hellenic  element  is  largest,  which  deserves  and 
will  repay  careful  verbal  study,  from  the  unique 
intrinsic  importance  of  the  writings  embodied  in  it. 

pre-Christian  historians  were  not  able  to  ignore  his  subject. 
Dr.  Abbott  has  suggested  (in  three  papers  in  the  Expositor, 
2nd  Series,  vol.  iii ),  that  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is 
written  in  "  Baboo  Greek  : "  and  as  Professor  Salmon  has 
pointed  out,  the  view  is  rather  favourable  than  otherwise  to 
its  genuineness. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE   JEWISH    HELLENISTS. 

ON  the  frontier  between  the  empires  of  the  Ptole- 
mies and  of  the  Seleucidse  lay  one  or  two  * 
small  communities,  whose  national  religion  had  enough 
internal  vigour  at  once  to  resist  assimilation  or 
fusion  with  the  common  Hellenic  polytheism,  and  to 
inspire  its  adherents  with  energy  and  genius  that 
prevented  their  forcible  extinction  or  dissolution. 
Yet  while  maintaining  an  unbroken  national  life  in 
their  own  country,  they  already  were  diffused  or  dis- 
persed in,  at  least,  all  the  adjoining  lands.  In  Egypt, 
especially,  they  had  a  large  and  important  colony. 
Various  legends,  incredible  as  they  stand,  yet  point 
to  the  fact  that  the  early  Ptolemies  regarded  the 
Jews  as  loyal  and  valuable  subjects,  and  granted 

*  We  know  very  little  of  the  real  religious  life  of  the 
Samaritans:  but,  from  what  seems  to  be  authentic  in  our 
accounts  of  the  teaching  and  career  of  Simon  Magus,  it  would 
seem  that  religious  thought  with  them  had  a  history  of  its 
own,  quite  distinct  from  that  of  the  Jews,  and  by  no  means 
without  intellectual  interest.  In  the  curious  description  of 
Alexandria  ascribed  to  Hadrian  (ap.  Vopisc.  Saturn.}  Samari- 
tans are  mentioned  with  Jews,  Christians,  and  worshippers  of 
Serapis,  among  the  proselytising  sects  of  the  city.  If  (as 
the  best  authorities  hold)  the  letter  is  spurious,  its  evidence  of 
the  vitality  of  Samaritan  religion  is  even  stronger,  as  its 
statements  will  apply  to  a  later  date. 


12     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

them  exceptional  privileges.*  It  is  generally  admitted 
as  credible,  though  the  story  comes  to  us  in  an 
unlbrust worthy  form,  that  about  B.C.  280  the  reigning 
king  of  Egypt  took  sufficient  interest  in  the  nation 
and  its  national  or  religious  life,  to  desire  a  Greek 
translation  to  be  made  of  their  sacred  law.  Our 
accounts  differ  as  to  whether  this  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  first  or  the  second  Ptolemy;  if  there  be  any 
truth  in  the  story  that  it  was  done  by  the  advice  of 
Demetrius  of  Phalerum,  the  first  is  likelier.  But 
whatever  the  date,  the  royal  patronage  proves  thus 
much,  that  in  Egypt  at  least  the  Jews  were  not 
treated  as  enemies  of  the  human  race,  but,  like  the 
native  Egyptians,!  as  a  nation  of  respectable  antiquity, 
whose  origins  had  an.  interest  for  Gieeks.  In  the 
course  of  the  next  century  and  a  half,  the  whole  of 
the  bcoks  i  reckoned  as  sacred  or  canonical  by  the 
Jews  of  Palestine  had  been  translated  into  Greek, 
probably  at  Alexandria.  So  wrere  other  works  which 
did  not  secure  a  permanent  §  place  in  the  Hebrew 
canon  ;  and  some  originally  composed  in  Greek  were 
regarded  with  equal  or  nearly  equal  honour.  Hence 

*  See  Mommsen's  History  of  Howe,  Book  VIII.  c.  xi  ad 
iriit.  (vol.  vi.  pp.  162-5,  English  translation). 

f  It  was  certainly  under  Ptolemy  II.  (Philadelphia)  that 
Manetho  wrote  his  Greek  chronicle  of  Egyptian  history. 

J  Whenever  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  written,  it  was  certainly 
translated  after  the  event  of  its  predictions  about  Autiochus 
Epiphanes. 

§  It  is  held  by  some  authorities,  that  the  Wisdom  of  the 
Son  of  Sirach  was  at  one  time  regarded  as  canonical,  even  in 
Palestine.  Jt  is  implied  in  the  Prologue,  that  the  translator 
knew  of  the  whole  of  what  he  regarded  as  the  Hebrew  Bible 
as  existing  in  a  Greek  translation  at  his  date —probably  soon 
after  B.C.  182,  though  the  meaning  of  his  language  is  dis- 
puted. 


HELLENISTIC  JEWISH  LITERATURE.     13 

arose  a  literature,  mainly  if  not  exclusively  religious, 
of  Hellenists  or  Greek-speaking  Jews :  of  men  sin- 
cerely and  thoroughly  loyal — sometimes  if  not  always 
thoroughly  consistent — in  their  faith  and  obedience 
to  the  Jewish  religion,  but  Greek,  often  exclusively 
Greek,  in  language,  and  often  more  or  less  influenced 
by  Greek  thought. 

And  though  this  Hellenistic  literature  was  mainly 
of  Alexandrian  origin,  its  influence  was  by  no  means 
confined  to  Egypt.  The  same  century  and  a  half 
that  witnessed  its  growth  witnessed  also  a  great 
extension  of  the  Jewish  "  Dispersion."  The  effect  of 
the  Maccabean  wars  of  independence  was  not  to  make 
Judaism  again,  what  it  had  been  in  the  days  before 
the  Captivity,  the  religion  of  a  single  nation  inhabit- 
ing Palestine.  Rather,  the  freedom  of  Jerusalem 
served  to  furnish  a  centre  of  loyalty,  and  a  title  of 
national  legitimacy,  to  the  Jews  who  carried  their 
religion  throughout  the  world.  If  may  be  true,  as 
commentators  on  the  Prophecies  are  wont  to  say,  that 
the  case  of  the  Jewish  Dispersion  since  Titus  and 
Hadrian  is  absolutely  unique — a  nation  without  a 
country,  but  kept  alive  by  a  religion.  But  if  it  is 
since  the  Roman  conquest  that  they  have  come  into 
this  state,  in  the  interval  between  Ptolemy  and  Titus 
they  had  reached  a  state  like  that  of  the  Armenians 
of  modern  times — a  nation  more  attached  to  their 
religion  than  to  their  country,  never  forsaking  the 
first,  but  thriving  best  away  from  the  other.  In  every 
large  city  from  Mesopotamia  to  Italy,  there  were  large 
organised  Jewish  communities  :  in  every  country  from 
Mesopotamia  to  Greece,  and  at  some  points  both 
further  east  and  further  west,  the  smaller  towns  had 


14     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

smaller  Jewish  communities,  generally  organised  like 
the  larger.  These  Jewish  communities  were  mostly 
poor,  often  turbulent,  and  increasingly  unpopular  : 
but  they  were  so  far  assimilated  to  the  population 
they  lived  among,  that  everywhere  to  the  west  of 
their  own  land  they  spoke  and  understood  Greek. 
Many  of  them  never,  except  for  ritual  purposes,  spoke 
any  other  language. 

These  Hellenistic  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  were  very 
possibly  affected  by  the  tendency  already  mentioned 
to  dialectical  variation  in  the  neo-Hellenic  language  : 
Cilician  and  Alexandrian  Jews  might  talk  more  like 
other  Cilicians  and  other  Alexandrians  than  like  each 
other.  And  at  Alexandria,  at  least,  there  arose  a 
school  of  what  may  in  the  widest  sense  be  called 
Hellenistic  literature,  but  of  which  the  literary  cha- 
racter is  far  more  Alexandrian  than  Jewish — a  school 
of  which  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  works  of  Philo, 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are  specimens. 

Still,  all  Jewish  writers — at  least  if  they  wrote, 
as  almost  all  did,  on  subjects  connected  with  the 
Jewish  religion — were  subject  to  one  common  influ- 
ence, which  could  not  but  give  their  style  a  common 
character.  It  could  not  but  affect  their  language, 
that  the  writings  which  they  treated  as  of  the  highest 
authority — which  even  a-  diligent  classicist  like  Philo 
is  compelled  to  take  as  text  for  his  comments — were 
not  native  Greek  works,  thought  out  in  Greek,  but 
translations,  and  mostly  slavishly  literal  ones,  from 
a  language  of  a  totally  different  genius.  In  later 
times,  all  the  languages  of  Christian  Europe  have 
had  their  phraseology,  sometimes  even  their  grammar, 
affected  by  that  of  the  Latin  or  Greek  Bibles  with 


BIBLICAL  AND  MODERN  INFLUENCES.     15 

whose  use  their  intellectual  cultivation  was  inseparably 
connected.  Still  more,  the  modern  English  and  per- 
haps the  modern  German  language  has  been  modified 
by  the  vernacular  translations  of  the  Bible  that 
supplied  them  with  their  earliest  classics.  But  to  a 
Jew  the  received  text  of  the  Bible  was  more  than  to 
a  Catholic,  more  than  to  any  but  the  most  fanatical 
Protestant,  the  one  source  of  truth,  wisdom,  and  en- 
lightenment :  and  the  influence  of  that  text  on  the 
forms  of  thought  and  language  was  proportionately 
greater.  Thus  it  is  that  there  came  to  exist  a 
Hellenistic  dialect,  having  real  though  variable  differ- 
ences from  the  Common  or  Hellenic  :  a  dialect  in 
which  any  Greek-speaking  Jew  would  naturally  think 
and  talk,  and  in  which  he  would  naturally  write, 
unless,  like  Philo  or  Josepus,  be  could  by  a  self- 
conscious  effort  or  acquired  habit  eliminate  the 
Hebraising  element  from  his  style. 

But  besides  this  Hebraising  element,  introduced 
from  without,  the  Hellenistic  dialect  shows  certain 
characteristics  of  the  later  Greek  in  a  higher  degree 
than  more  purely  Hellenic  writers  of  the  same  date. 
"  Modern  Greek,"  said  Mr.  Geldart,  "  is  ancient  Greek 
made  easy :  "  and  late  Greek  is,  in  general,  "  easier  " 
to  a  modern  reader  than  earlier  Greek.  It  is  very 
natural  that  it  should  be  so,  because  the  Greek 
language,  in  the  course  of  time  and  of  events,  began 
to  assume  the  character  of  a  modern  language.  From 
the  age  of  Thucydides  to  the  age  of  St.  Chrysostom, 
Greek  style  was  more  moulded  by  rhetorical  art  than 
is  the  case  in  most  modern  languages :  but  from  the 
age  of  Plato  onward  it  had  been  realised  that  rhetoric 
defeats  its  own  end  if  it  overrides  grammar  :  and  so, 


16     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

as  in  modern  languages,  and  as  increasingly  in  their 
most  modern  periods,  it  had  been  felt  to  be  of  the 
first  necessity  to  write  clearly — to  write  forcibly,  or 
even  elegantly,  was  an  object  secondary  to  this. 

And  if  the  comparatively  pure  literary  Greek  of 
the  post-classical  period  showed  this  tendency  to  value 
simplicity  and  lucidity  above  all  other  qualities  of 
style,  this  was  likely  to  be  still  more  the  case  with 
the  language  of  less  educated  men,  or  with  half -foreign 
idioms  like  the  Hellenistic.  Here  the  influence  of 
rhetorical  art  and  education,  which  as  we  have  said 
was  strong  among  pure  Greeks,  was  almost  entirely 
absent.  Oratory  had  been  the  latest  form  of  literary 
art  in  which  independent  Greece  had  displayed  genius  : 
it  was  the  one  in  which  it  was  hardest  to  draw  the 
line  between  the  old  works  of  genius  and  the  artificial 
productions  of  their  imitators.  But  the  Jews  had 
never  been  orators  nor  men  swayed  by  oratory :  * 
the  desire  to  be  telling,  which  moulded,  the  antitheti- 
cal periods  of*  the  early  sophists,  and  of  their  pupil 
"Thucydides,  had*  little  or  no  weight  with  them  :  and 
they  had  only  this  in  common  with  Demosthenes 
and  his  contemporaries,  that  they  wished  to  make 
sure  of  being  understood  by  men  who  heard  their 
words  once. 

Thus  the  tendency  of  later  Greek  to  simplification 
of  construction  and  idiom  was  intensified  when  the 

*  The  only  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  can  be 
called  orations — addresses  to  assemblies  on  secular  topics 
with  a  view  to  persuasion — are  Isa.  xxxvi.  13-20,  and  Neh.  v. 
8-11.  The  second  passage  is  earnest  and  effective,  but  it  is 
Nehemiah's  deeds  rather  than  his  words  that  are  eloquent. 
The  first  (which  is  not  the  work  of  a  Jew)  is  clever  enough  : 
but  we  see  that  it  fell  utterly  flat  on  the  Hebrew  mind,  in 
contrast  with  the  two  words  of  "the  king's  commandment." 


LESSENED  FREEDOM  OF  IDIOM.       17 

language  was  used  by  Jews  :  most  especially  was  this 
the  case,  when  the  Jews,  though  able  to  speak  and 
write  in  Greek,  retained  their  own  Semitic  language 
in  more  or  less  habitual  use.  It  is  not  very  hard  to 
learn  to  speak  or  write  in  a  language  not  one's  own. 
But  to  learn  to  think  indifferently  in  either  of  two 
languages  is  much  harder  :  and  it  is  perhaps  impossible 
so  to  think,  as  not  to  have  the  form  of  thought 
modified  by  the  language  in  which  it  is  natural  to 
embody  it.  Now  if  you  think  in  one  language  and 
translate  your  thoughts  into  another,  your  mastery 
of  the  second  language  is,  almost  ex  hypothesi,  incom- 
plete :  at  any  rate,  your  command  of  its  idiom  will 
be  limited  by  your  acquired  knowledge  of  it — you 
have  not  the  instinct  that  will  enable  you  to  speak 
or  write  freely  and  boldly,  knowing  that  your  words 
will  be  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of  the  language, 
even  if  you  do  not  know  of  precedents  or  technical 
rules  to  justify  them.  Therefore  the  man  who  can 
speak  or  write  in  a  language,  but  cannot  think  in  it, 
is  obliged  to  confine  himself  to  constructions  and 
idioms  for  which  the  rules  are  few  and  simple.* 
And  as  with  an  individual,  so  with  a  community 
who  adopt  a  language  not  their  own  :  only  in  this 
case  they  will  be  aided  by  one  another  in  adapting 
thought  and  language  to  each  other,  and  the  result 
will  be  completer  and  more  systematic.  When  there 
are  alternative  ways  in  which  a  thought  can  be 
expressed,  one  will  be  selected — either  as  the  easiest 
intrinsically,  or  as  likest  to  the  native  language — and 
the  other  will  drop  out  of  use.  And  thoughts  for 

*  Compare  Westcott  on  St.  John's  Gospel,  Introduction,  II. 
5.  b,  c. 


18     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

which  the  native  language  supplies  expression,  but 
the  acquired  one  does  not,  will  find  utterance  either 
by  importations  from  the  native  language,  by  imita- 
tions of  it  from  the  unused  resources  of  the  new  one, 
or  by  modifications  in  the  use  of  some  words  native 
to  the  latter.  The  biblical  uses  of  'A/^v,  Trpoo-wTro- 
A?7/xi/aa,  dprjvr]  are  illustrations  of  these  three  methods 
respectively. 

Thus  we  are  able  to  describe  the  language  of 
Hellenistic  Jews,  spoken  and  to  a  less  extent  written 
in  the  first  century  of  our  era,  as  a  form  of  the  post- 
Alexandrine  or  "  common  dialect "  of  Greek,  modified 
partly  by  the  local  or  dialectical  peculiarities  of 
Alexandria  and  its  neighbourhood,  but  more  exten- 
sively by  a  simplification  of  grammar  and  idiom,  by 
an  abandonment  of  the  antithetical  and  rhetorical 
form  of  sentence  usual  in  classical  Greek,  and  by 
some  adoption  or  imitation  of  Semitic  idioms,  or  at 
least  the  choice  of  such  Greek  idioms  as  resembled  the 
Semitic  most. 

It  is  in  this  language,  whose  origin  and  charac- 
teristics we  have  been  tracing,  that  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written.  And  if  there  be  any 
point  in  which  the  designs  of  Providence  are  obvious 
to  man,  it  is  that  this  language,  with  all  its  charac- 
teristics and  with  all  the  historical  events  that  gave 
rise  to  them,  was  specially  designed  as  an  instrument 
for  making  the  New  Testament  known  to  the  world. 
It  is  generally  recognised,  how  the  purely  political 
effects  of  Macedonian  and  Roman  conquest  had  pre- 
pared the  world  for  the  reception  of  the  Gospel. 
Alexander  had  raised  the  Hellenic  spirit  from  the 
mere  national  pride  of  a  gifted  nation  into  the  sense 


FITNESS  OF  HELLENISTIC   GREEK     19 

of  an  intellectual  culture  and  civilisation  which  might 
be,  and  which  tended  to  become,  world-wide.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  had  failed  to  embrace  the  civilised 
world  in  one  empire  :  and  his  successors  had  failed 
to  make  the  common  world-wide  civilisation  include 
the  confession  of  Hellenic  or  syncretist  Paganism  as 
the  common  world- wide  religion.  The  Romans,  in 
their  turn,  first  made  their  way  into  the  world  of 
Hellenic  culture,  and  then  took  possession  as  heirs  to 
Greece  of  its  remaining  intellectual  life  :  and  at  the 
same  time  they  succeeded  where  Alexander  had  failed, 
in  embracing  in  one  imperial  polity  the  world  of 
social  and  intellectual  enlightenment.  They  too,  like 
the  Seleucida3,  felt  their  empire  imperfect  unless  it  ex- 
tended into  the  regions  of  the  soul  and  of  the  con- 
science :  and  against  them,  no  doubt,  it  would  have 
been,  humanly  speaking,  impossible  for  one  nation  to 
maintain  the  cause  of  spiritual  liberty,  even  had  it 
had  as  worthy  champions  as  the  sons  of  Mattathias. 
But  Rome  did  not  precipitate  the  conflict  with  the 
People  of  the  God  of  Israel,  until  His  People  had 
grown  from  the  one  nation  of  Israel  into  a  Catholic 
Church.  The  Stone  that  was  hewn  without  hands 
did  not  smite  the  feet  of  the  image  of  the  world- 
empire,  until  it  was  ready  itself  to  become  a  mountain 
that  should  fill  the  whole  earth. 

Arid  subordinate  to  this  historical  preparation  of  the 
world  for  the  Gospel,  but  not  unconnected  with  it, 
nor  of  too  little  importance  to  be  worthily  coupled 
with  it,  was  the  formation  of  the  language  in  which 
the  Gospel  was  to  be  conveyed  to  the  world.  Just 
as  Greek  is  superior  to  most  if  not  all  other  languages 
as  a  vehicle  for  poetry,  so,  Christian  Hebraists  tell  us, 


20     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Hebrew  is  superior  to  other  languages  as  a  vehicle 
for  devotion.  Just  as  one  gains  by  reading  Homer 
in  the  original,  so  one  gains  by  reading  the  Psalter 
in  the  original,  though  the  nature  of  the  gain  be 
different.  Still,  even  the  Old  Testament  probably 
loses  less  in  translation  than  most  other  literatures 
of  high  rank  or  influence;  and  when  the  Hebrew 
outline  of  religious  language  was  copied  in  a  Greek 
framework,  the  result  can  be  reproduced  without  loss 
for  every  nation  under  heaven  in  their  own  tongue 
wherein  they  were  born. 

Thus  we  see  the  true  answer,  on  the  one  hand  to  the 
sneers  of  half -pagan  classicists  who  despised  the  New 
Testament  as  "  bad  Greek,"  on  the  other  to  the  theories 
of  Christian  scholars,  who  held  themselves  bound  to 
defend  the  purity  of  its  language,  because  they  felt 
the  language  not  to  be  unworthy  of  its  subject-matter. 
It  is  true  that  the  half-Hebraised  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  is  neither  a  very  elegant  nor  a  very  ex- 
pressive language ;  but  it  is  a  many-sided  language, 
an  eminently  translatable  language.  It  may  be 
called,  in  the  words  of  one  of  those  who  used  it,  "  rude 
in  speech,  but  not  in  knowledge  "  :  like  Him  Whom 
it  reveals,  it  "  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness,  no  beauty 
that  we  should  desire  it."  But  this  very  plainness 
fits  it  for  conveying  a  plain  message  to  plain  men. 
"  It  was  not  God's  pleasure  to  save  the  world  by 
logic  ;  "  neither  was  it  His  pleasure  to  save  the  world 
by  eloquence  or  poetry.  The  Gospel,  starting  from 
the  meeting-point  of  East  and  West,  was  so  expressed 
from  the  first  as  to  be  able  to  travel  both  eastward 
and  westward.  All  round  its  earliest  home  it  was 
intelligible  as  it  stood  :  its  Semitic  base  made  it  easy 


FOR  DIFFUSION  AND  FOR  TRANSLATION.  21 

to  introduce  it  to  the  nations  of  the  further  East  :  its 
superficial  Greek  structure  made  it  equally  easy  to 
reproduce  it  in  the  kindred  tongue  of  the  great  West. 
It  reached  the  capital  of  the  world  in  its  original 
form  ;  perhaps  in  Italy  and  Gaul,  certainly  in  Africa, 
it  was  translated  in  a  form  closely  resembling  the 
original,  for  the  Italian  or  Latinised  population  of 
the  empire.  Then,  in  modern  times,  the  fact  that 
it  belongs  to  a  late  stage  of  language  has  made  it 
easy  to  reproduce  it  in  languages  which  themselves 
are  in  a  late  state :  as  Tyndale  truly  said,  there  are 
some  characteristics  of  Greek  which  it  is  far  easier 
to  express  in  EngMsh  than  in  Latin. 

This  characteristic  of  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  it  is  an  eminently  translatable  lan- 
guage, may  warn  us  not  to  expect  too  much  from 
the  minute  study  of  New  Testament  grammar.  Just 
as  there  is  hardly  any  grammar  in  English  as  com- 
pared with  other  languages,  so  there  is  very  little 
grammar  in  New  Testament  Greek  compared  with 
other  Greek.  There  is  something  that  the  diligent 
scholar  can  learn  from  study  of  the  Gospel  in  the 
original :  but  he  must  beware  of  overrating  its 
importance,  which  is  but  slight  compared  with  what 
any  diligent  reader  can  learn  from  study  of  any 
decently  faithful  translation.  There  are  cases,  though 
few,  where  a  passage  has  its  beauty  and  signifi- 
cance heightened  by  a  shade  of  language  that 
vanishes  in  translation  :  one  may  instance  the  use 
of  </>tXetv  and  ayairav  in  the  last  chapter  of  St.  John. 
Again,  there  are  cases  where  Greek  idiom  defines 
what  another  language  gives  no  means  of  defining 
without  cumbrousness :  e.g.,  a  Latin  version  cannot 


22     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

express  the  force  of  an  article,  nor  can  an  English  one 
express  (at  least  elegantly)  a  present  participle  passive 
like  o-a>£o/xe]/o<?,  to  which  neither  "  saved "  (crtoflets  or 
o-€o-a>oy/,ei/o9*)  nor  "such  as  should  be  saved"  (a-^Brja-o- 
/xei/os)  is  a  real  equivalent.  For  things  like  these,  those 
who  are  not  Greek  scholars  must  depend  for  guidance 
and  control  in  interpretation  on  those  who  are  :  and 
those  who  are  will  have  a  greater  freshness,  perhaps 
a  greater  keenness  of  insight  into  the  processes  of 
the  minds  of  the  inspired  writers.  This,  and  not  any 
new  or  transforming  light  on  the  general  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament,  is  what  may  be  gained  from  the 
study  which  we  are  approaching. 

*  St.  Paul  however  is  not  afraid  to  say  ear£  creffcoo-^voi 
(Eph.  ii.  5,  8)  :  so  that  even  here  our  lesson  is  only  one  of 
grammar  or  at  most  of  exegesis,  not  of  general  theology. 


CHAPTER   II. 

CHARACTERISTICS    OF    NEW  TESTAMENT   GREEK    IN   THE 
FORMS    OR   INFLEXIONS. 

I.  NOUNS. — (a)  Proper. 

TTERODOTUS  observes  (I.  cxxxix.  2),  that  all 
J — L  Persian  proper  names  of  men  ended  in  the 
letter  s.  This  was  true  of  all  such  names  as  known 
to  the  Greeks,  but  in  the  native  Persian  forms,  known 
to  us  from  contemporary  inscriptions,  while  some  end 
in  a  sibilant,  others  end  in  a  short  vowel.  Now  to 
a  Greek  it  seemed  impossible  that  a  masculine  name 
should  end  in  a  vowel :  so  while  names  of  the  former 
class  were  transliterated  with  approximate  fidelity, 
those  of  the  latter  were  Grecised  by  adding  the  ter- 
mination -as,  -775,  or  -09 ;  the  choice  of  a  vowel  being 
determined  partly  by  euphony,  partly  perhaps  by 
an  instinctive  sense  of  philological  analogy,  just  as 
Greeks  and  Eomans  saw  the  equivalence  of  -os  and 
-ov  with  -us  and  -urn,  when  they  had  occasion  to 
transliterate  proper  names  or  other  words  from  one 
language  into  the  other. 

Thus,  from  the  earliest  days  of  Greek  prose  litera- 
ture, a  precedent  was  established  for  the  Grecising 
of  Oriental  proper  names,  and  this  precedent  was 


24     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

extended,  in  time,  to  names  belonging  to  languages 
which  had  not,  like  the  Persian,  any  affinity  or 
analogy  to  Greek  declensions.  Herodotus  himself 
has  several  pure  Phoenician  names  with  Greek  ter- 
minations :  two  are  recognisable  as  compounds  of  Baal, 
and  a  third  is  apparently  the  same  as  the  Biblical 
Hiram  (VII.  xcviii). 

Several  non-Hellenic  or  non-Aryan  names,  however, 
were  accepted  by  Greek  writers  for  use  as  they  stood. 
If  their  terminations  made  them  capable  of  Greek 
declension,  they  were  declined,  at  least  in  some  cases ; 
Plato  has  (Pkcedr.  274,  D,  E),  ©a/x-ov  and  ©«//,ow  as 
gen.  and  ace.  of  ®a/x,o9s.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
uses  (ibid.)  ®€v@  as  indeclinable  :  and  so  Herodotus 
had  done  with  the  Arabian  divine  names  OporaX  and 
AXtXar  (III.  viii.  4).  Similarly  Clearchus  (ap.  Josep. 
c.  Ap.  i.  22)  gave  the  accurate  transliteration 
Iepovcra/\ry/x  *  for  the  city  whose  name  was  usually 
supplied  with  a  Greek  termination  and  a  Greek  ety- 
mology in  the  form  'lepoo-oAv/xa. 

Of  course  in  the  LXX.  there  was  more  frequent 
need  than  in  any  purely  Greek  work  for  the  insertion 
of  "barbarian"  proper  names.  And  as  a  rule,  the 
names  of  persons  and  cities  are  not  supplied  with 
Greek  terminations,  but  simply  transliterated,  and 
used  as  indeclinable.  A  certain  number,  however, 
lent  themselves  to  Greek  declension  as  they  stood. 
Both  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek  a  long  a  (followed,  it 

*  In  discussing  the  form  of  these  "  barbarian  "  proper  nouns, 
it  seems  best  to  omit  the  breathing.  The  MSS.  tha't  mark  it 
are  too  late  to  embody  a  tradition  of  any  value  ;  words  like 
HXias,  Htraias.  as  to  which  one  would  think  ecclesiastical  use 
must  have  embodied  a  tradition,  are  among  the  forms  as  to 
which  MS.  use  is  most  variable. 


GREEK  DECLENSION  OF  FOREIGN  NAMES.  25 

is  true,  in  Hebrew  by  a  mute  /«-),  is  a  common  ter- 
mination of  fern,  names ;  and  so  we  find  E9a,  ]$apa 
or  %dppa,  ^€7r<£u'y>a  regularly  declined  in  the  LXX. 

Now  not  a  few  masc.  names  have  the  same  termina- 
tion :  in  particular,  the  many  compounds  of  the  Divine 
Name,  which  in  the  older  biblical  language  ended 
in  -jahu,  were  in  later  Hebrew  apocopated  to  -jah. 
These  and  other  names  of  the  same  ending  were 
treated  as  analogous  to  the  fern,  names  in  -ah,  and 
were  represented  by  names  in  -as  of  the  first  de- 
clension :  sometimes  barytone,  as  lovSas,  HAeias,*  but 
oftener  with  a  circumflex  on  the  last  syllable,  which 
regularly  had  the  accent  in  Hebrew. 

And  for  these  names  in  -as  representing  -a/*,  the 
late  Greek  had  a  suitable  declension  ready.  Pure 
Greek  nouns  in  -as  formed  their  genitives  in  -ao 
(Homeric),  -eta  (Ionic),  or  -ov  (Attic) :  but  there  had 
arisen  a  large  class  of  pr.  nn.,  including  the  Persian 
ones  already  mentioned,  for  which  the  only  gen.  in 
use  was  the  (originally  Doric)  form  in  -a.  We  get 
OtStTToSa  in  the  tragedians  for  the  Homeric  OiSiTroSao, 
r<D/3pva  and  the  like  in  Xenophon  for  the  Ionic 
T(D/3pv€u>,  besides  the  Syracusan  Two-La  (Hell.  I.  i. 
29) :  Herodotus  himself  has  ^Ua  in  VII.  xcviii,  and 
the  verses  (apparently  not  new  in  Plato's  time)  in 
P/wedr.,  264  D,  have  MiSa. 

And  if  this  was  a  recognised  declension  for  names 
either  purely  Greek  or  naturalised  in  the  best  Greek 
period,  there  were  two  influences  that  made  such 
names  commoner  in  later  Greek.  Roman  masc. 

*  In  the  Books  of  Kings,  what  seems  to  be  the  oldest  text 
of  the  LXX.  has  the  indeclinable  form  HXtotf  to  represent 
Eli j  aim. 


26     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

names  in  -a  were  represented  by  names  of  this  form, 
e.g.,  ^vAAas,  gen.  ^vXXa,  for  Sulla,  -as :  and  names  in 
common  use  of  pure  Greek  derivation  had  colloquial 
abbreviations,  such  as  Z^ras  for  Z^i/oSoros  or  Z>7i/oSa>pos, 
A?7//,as  for  Ar/^rpto?.  Every  one  will  remember  that 
these  names  occur  in  the  N.  T.  :  in  circles  where  they 
were  familiar,  we  see  there  was  an  analogy  ready  for 
the  treatment  of  Hebrew  names  like  looms,  or  Aramaic 
ones  like  ®o>/xas.  Words  in  -as  pure  however  (and 
therefore  the  large  class  in  -uzs),  generally  but  not 
universally  take  -ov  in  the  gen.,  e.g.,  Ovpiov,  Matt, 
i.  6;  Ho-aiov,  iii.  3;  but  HXeta,  Luke  i.  17,  is  the 
better  attested  form. 

But  the  usage  of  the  LXX.,  and  even  of  the  New 
Testament,  does  not  proceed  quite  consistently,  in 
deciding  what  names  are  or  are  not  capable  of  Greek 
inflexion.  Several  names,  both  personal  and  local, 
are  treated  as  indeclinable,  though  they  have  ter 
minations  admissible  in  Greek  nominatives :  we  have 
~B7j0(f>ayf),  not  -yfjv  in  Matt.  xxi.  1  ;  Kara,  not  Karas  or 
Karon/  in  John  xxi.  2  ;  Aapoov,  not  Aapwvos,  in  Heb. 
vii.  11,  ix.  4.  In  the  LXX.  2aA.a)/xw  is  indeclinable, 
though  the  final  v,  not  existing  in  Hebrew,  looks  as 
if  it  were  added-  to  Grecise  the  word.*  But  in  the 
N.  T.  we  have  the  dialectical  variant  2oA.o/*,oV,  which 
is  declined — the  gen.  being,  according  to  the  best 
MSS.,  SoXo/AcoFos  not  -poi/Tos,  except  in  the  two  places 
where  it  occurs  in  the  Acts  (iii.  11,  and  perhaps  v.  12). 

Comparatively  few  names  are  Grecised  in  the  N.  T. 
by  simply  sticking  on  the  termination  -os,  as  Josepus 
does  to  all  names — e.g.,  his  own — which  could  take 

*  Apparently,  however,  the  N  really  belongs  to  names  in 
kindred  languages  supposed  to  be  identical  with  this. 


ANOMALIES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT    USE.  27 

no  Greek  inflexion  otherwise.*  We  have,  however, 
'IctKoo/Sos  very  often,  'laeipos  in  two  parallel  passages 
of  the  Gospels  (St.  Matthew,  though  having  the  story, 
omits  the  name),  and  ^cu5Aos  usually  of  St.  Paul — 
%aov\  only  in  our  Lord's  words  at  his  conversion, 
which  we  are  expressly  told  were  spoken  in  Hebrew, 
and  in  those  of  Ananias,  which  presumably  were  so 
likewise.  In  all  these  cases,  the  inflected  forms  are 
used  only  of  contemporaries.  The  patriarch  is  always 
'IaKoj/2,  the  king  of  Israel  SaovA  :  similarly  we  have 
Aa£apos  of  the  two  N.  T.  characters,  but  EA.ea£o/>  in 
Matt.  i.  15  (note  the  MS.  reading  Alazarus  .  .  . 
Lazarum  in  Tac.  Hist.  V.  xiii.  4,  5).  But  the  prophet 
is  EAicratos  (so,  with  one  cr,  the  best  MSS.),  in  Luke 
iv.  27.  'Aya/3oT,  AA<£ato5,  ©aSSatos  and  Ae/2/3atos  are  on 
a  somewhat  different  footing,  not  being  names  derived 
from  biblical  Hebrew;  and  Ti/^atos  is  no  doubt  the  pure 
Greek  name  borrowed,  though  the  form  Baprt/Aaios 
shows  how  entirely  it  was  naturalised  in  Aramaic. 

Some  of  the  names  sufficiently  Grecised  to  be  habit- 
ually inflected  are  yet  so  far  felt  to  be  foreign  words 
that  there  is  some  uncertainty  and  irregularity  about 
their  inflexion.  Thus  Mwvcn;?  (so  we  ought  appar- 
ently always  to  read)  makes  the  gen.  Mwi;o-€0)9,  but 
dat.  Mowo-rJ  oftener  than  Mowo-et,  ace.  Mcoucrea  in  Luke 
xvi.  29  only,  elsewhere  Mawcnji/.  Icoo-iJ?  has  gen. 
in  Mark  xv.  40,  47  in  the  best  MSS. :  but 
Matt,  xxvii.  56,  unless  we  there  read  Io)o-^</>. 
Here  we  have  an  assimilation  to  the  already  described 
declension  of  names  in  -as :  we  get  something  of  the 

*  He  almost  apologises  for  the  practice,  Ant.  I.  vi.  1  fin. 
As  to  the  way  that  we  should  write  his  name,  it  seems  fair  to 
follow  his  own  usage  in  spelling  it  with  a  TT  not  a  <f>. 


28     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


sort  too  in  the  case  of  the  contracted  name  ' 
which  is  all  but  indecl.,  having  'ATroAAw  even  for  ace., 
Acts  xix.  1  .  And  lastly,  some  names  seemed  capable 
of  inflexion  in  some  cases  but  not  in  all.  To  this 
class  we  may  almost  refer  the  name  Irjcrovs,  which  in 
the  riom.  and  the  ace.  Irjo-ovv  is  fairly  regular,  but  has 
always  in  the  N.  T.  Ir)<rov  for  dat.  as  well  as  gen. 
and  voc.  —  not  the  more  regular  I^crot,  which  according 
to  MS.  evidence  is  used  in  the  LXX.  ;  doubtless 
because  it  was  felt  that  the  v  was  radical.*  In 
regard  to  this  name  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
in  all  extant  MSS.  it  is  habitually  abbreviated,  1C  or 
IHC,  IY,  IN. 

The  name  of  the  sister  of  Moses  and  of  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  which  Josepus  lengthens  into  Mapta/x//,?;,  is 
in  the  N.  T.  one  of  these  half  -inflected  names.  In 
the  nom.  and  ace.  there  is  almost  always  a  v.  1 
between  Mapia//,  and  Mopta,  -av  :  the  gen.  is  always 
Maptas  :  the  dat.  occurs  only  twice,  viz.,  Luke  ii.  5, 
where  Mapta//,  is  almost  certain,  and  Acts  i.  14,  where 
B  and  a  few  other  MSS.  have  Maptayu,  against  the 
majority  for  Mapia.  In  the  nom.  and  ace.,  the  evi- 
dence preponderates  for  the  form  in  -dp.  in  most  places 
where  the  name  belongs  t®  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  for 
the  inflected  form  in  most  where  it  is  used  of  other 
women.  But  on  MS.  evidence  it  seems  impossible  to 
say  that  there  is  any  constant  distinction  observed  — 
still  less  is  there  evidence  of  the  existence  of  two 
names,  like  our  Mary  and  Maria. 

The    0.    T.   name   Levi   takes,    according   to    MS. 

*  The  declension  of  Oa^ious  in  Plato,  already  referred  to,  is 
as  far  as  it  goes  identical  with  this  :  he  does  not  use  the  dat. 
at  all. 


PROPER  NAMES  DECLINABLE  OR  NOT.  29 

evidence,  the  form  Acw's  or  Aevets  *  in  the  iiom., 
in  Heb.  vii.  9,  where  it  is  used  of  the  patriarch ; 
but  in  ver.  5,  as  well  as  in  Rev.  vii.  7,  and  in  the 
genealogy  of  Luke  iii.  24,  29,  the  uniiiflected  form 
Aevet  or  Aew  is  used  as  a  gen.  In  the  Gospels 
where  the  name  is  used  of  the  publican,  the  gen. 
does  not  occur  :  the  MSS.  are  all  but  unanimous  for 
the  nom.  in  -is  and  ace.  in  -iv  in  St.  Luke,  and  the 
evidence  predominates  for  -is  in  St.  Mark. 

For  the  city  Jerusalem,  the  Grecised  form  Me/joo-oAv/xa 
is  almost  exclusively  used  by  SS.  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
John :  the  indeclinable  lepovo-aA^/x,  occurring  only  in 
Matt,  xxiii.  37,  and  in  the  T.  R,  but  not  in  the 
best  authorities,  in  Mark  xi.  1.  But  the  latter  form 
predominates  decidedly  in  SS.  Luke  and  Paul — con- 
trary to  what  might  have  been  expected  in  their 
more  Helleiiised  style  — and  in  the  Apocalypse.  It  is 
always  fern. ;  but  'IepocroAu//,a  is  treated  as  a  fern,  in 
Matt.  ii.  3  only — elsewhere  it  is  a  neuter  pi.  As 
to  the  breathing,  Latin  usage  surely  proves  that 
people  who  used  the  declinable  form  pronounced 
it  with  an  aspirate.  Very  likely  they  were  led  to 
do  so  by  a  false  etymology  (Tac.  Hist.  V.  ii.  4),  so 
that  it  throws  no  light  on  the  correct  breathing  for 
Jepovo-aXrjfJi :  but  in  ecclesiastical  Latin  the  //  was 
admitted  there  also. 

*  For  the  uncertainty  of  readings  involving  the  use  of  the 
simple  i  or  the  diphthong  et  see  p.  40.  In  this  name  and 
several  others,  the  best  editors  are  nearly  unanimous  in  pre- 
ferring the  diphthong.  But  Westcott  and  Hort  are  alone  in 
reading  'EXet0-ci/3er,  after  B,  in  St.  Luke  i. 


30     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

(6)  Appellative. 

The  chief  change  from  classical  usage  in  the  de- 
clension of  ordinary  nouns  is  the  result  of  the  tendency 
of  the  later  stages  of  a  language  to  greater  sim- 
plicity and  uniformity.  Just  as  in  modern  English 
exceptional,  forms  like  "  brethren  "  have  given  place 
to  "regular"  ones  like  "  brothers,"*  so  in  Greek 
there  was  a  tendency  to  reduce  the  three  distinct 
declensions  to  two,  one  for  masc.  and  one  for  fern, 
nouns,  and  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between 
the  subordinate  groups  comprised  under  each  of  the 
three.  But  in  Greek,  even  to  the  present  day,  the 
assimilation  has  not  been  carried  as  far  as  in 
English  :  in  the  1ST.  T.  we  only  observe  it  in  a  few 
isolated  cases.  E.g.  though  the  Latin  forms  tetrarcka, 
patriarcha,  show  that  the  nouns  usually,  in  the 
Greek  of  the  first  century  and  even  earlier,  had 
the  termination  -dpxns,  we  nnd  the  older  forms  in 
-ap^os  not  infrequently.  These  two  words  indeed 
have  always  the  rj  (the  former  being,  according  to  the 
preponderance  of  MS.  evidence,  spelt  rer/oaap^s).  But 
we  have  ^tXtap^os  always,  and  e/carovrap^os  sometimes, 
unless  we  are  to  assume  uniformity  in  spite  of  MSS. 
In  Acts  indeed  the  last  word  always  has  -rjs  except 
in  xxii.  25  :t  but  in  the  Gospels  usage  varies.  Cer- 
tain fern,  substantives  in  -pa  form  their  gen.  and  dat. 
with  rj  instead  of  d.  According  to  the  best  MSS., 

*  In  the  fifteenth  century,  according  to  a  well-known  story 
of  Caxton's,  "  eggs  "  was  only  used  in  some  local  dialects, 
instead  of  "  eyren  " — a  form  exactly  analogous  to  "  brethren." 

f  In  xxviii.  16  the  best  MSS.  omit  the  sentence  :  but  of 
those  that  have  it,  nearly  all  read  eKaTOPTapxos,  and  the  best 


FALSE  ANALOGIES  IN  DECLENSION.     31 

crTret^a,  fjid^aipa,  Trptopa,  TrXrjfJLfJivpa  have  77  in  all  or 
most  of  the  places  where  these  cases  occur :  so 
perhaps  the  pr.  n.  2a7r<£apa  or  -prj  and  the  ptcp. 
oon/eiSw'iys  in  the  passage  relating  to  her. 

Certain  substantives  in  -os,  which  in  classical  Greek 
are  always  or  generally  masculine  and  of  the  second 
declension,  are  in  the  N.  T.  always  or  commonly 
neuters  of  the  third — rrAoiVos,  £>}A,os,  eXcos,  perhaps 
^o§  in  Luke  xxi.  25  (but  not  Heb.  xii.  19  ;  else- 
where the  word  occurs  only  in  the  nom.),  as  well 
as  O-KOTOS,  where  the  neut.  form  occurs  in  classical 
if  not  in  Attic  writers. 

The  declension  of  the  contracted  substantives  vovs 
and  TrAoOs  is,  by  a  false  analogy,  assimilated  to  that 
of  fiovs. 

The  dual  number  has  altogether  disappeared  :  even 
the  word  a/^^cu  has  been  superseded  by  d/x^oVe/ooi. 
Thus  Svo  is  left  without  any  word  analogous  to  it, 
except  the  higher  numerals,  and  tends  to  become,  like 
them,  indecl.  It  serves  for  gen.,  as  well  as  nom.  and 
ace.  :  but  the  dat.  is  Svcri[v],  like  r/atcrtV,  reo'crapo'iv. 
(In  this  word  the  omission  and  insertion  of  the  final 
v  appear  to  be  equally  frequent  :  in  most  dat.  pi. 
forms  in  -criv,  and  in  the  similar  3rd  pi.  of  verbs,  it  is, 
according  to  MS.  evidence,  general  but  not  universal.) 

Lastly,  the  tendency  shows  itself  which  has  pre- 
vailed more  widely  in  modern  Greek,  to  make  all 
sing.  ace.  forms  (except  of  course  neuters)  end  in  v. 
Thus  ^etpav,  do-repay,  and  again  (rvyytvfjv  and  the  like, 
are  in  some  places  very  strongly  attested.  Conversely, 
we  twice  (Acts  xxiv.  27,  Jude  4)  have  ^dpLTa  instead 
of  the  usual  x°LPLV  :  one  -^^  nas  *ne  same  in  Acts 
xxv.  9. 


32     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

(c)  Adjective. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  discuss  the  cases  where 
usage  varies,  in  the  N.  T.  as  in  other  Greek,  as  to 
whether  an  adj.  belonging  to  a  fern,  subst.  shall 
receive  a  distinctive  fern,  termination,  or  retain  that 
of  the  masc.  Both  classical  and  late  usage  being 
variable,  the  details  of  variation  can  hardly  be  signi- 
ficant, even  where,  according  to  the  evidence  now 
known,  they  varied  in  different  directions.  For 
instance,  d/ayo?,  "  idle,"  is  in  the  classical  period  of 
two  terminations ;  but  the  fern,  form  is  found  as  early 
as  Aristotle.  In  the  IS".  T.  we  have  it  in  Tit.  i.  12 
as  well  as  in  1  Tim.  v.  13  :  and  though  St.  Paul  was 
not  a  critic  of  Epimenides'  text,  it  would  be  rash  to 
say  that  Epimenides  did  not  write  apyaL  Again,  6'o-ios 
is  usually  of  three  terminations,  but  of  two,  not  only 
in  1  Tim.  ii.  8,  but  as  early  as  Plato. 

In  the  comparison  of  adjectives  there  is  little 
divergence  from  classical  use.  Of  course  the  later 
forms,  which  are  usually  the  more  regular,  are  found  : 
e.g.  the  adv.  "  quicker  "  is  always  rvyiov,  not  Oacro-ov.* 
But  /x,ei£oT€paK  in  3  John  4  is  the  only  case  wl.ere 
we  have  a  double  comp.  termination,  such  as  becomes 
common  in  the  later  stage  of  a  language,  where 
forms  of  expression  are  losing  their  force,  and  have 
to  be  accumulated  if  it  is  to  be  retained.  In  the 
eA.a^icTTorepa)  of  Eph.  iii.  8,  of  course  the  sup.  and 
comp.  terminations  have  each  their  proper  meaning : 
the  formation  of  the  word  is  a  licence,  but  not  a 
symptom  of  decay. 

*  rie/>i<70-«Te/9ws,  used  by  St.  Paul  and  in  Heb.,  has  classical 
precedent  (at  least,  Isocr.  ad  Nicocl.  p.  35  fin.  has  Tre/otrro- 


FORMS    VARIABLE  FROM  RARITY.      33 

II.  VERBS. 

In  the  rich  and  varied  inflexions  of  the  Greek  verb, 
there  are  many  forms  as  to  which  literary  usage  was, 
perhaps,  at  no  period  of  the  language  strictly  uni- 
form. There  are  some  that  occur  so  rarely,  that 
there  never  were  precedents  enough  to  fix  usage :  * 
there  are  others  whose  formation  is  so  exceptional 
that,  when  its  history  was  forgotten,  the  impulse  was 
at  once  felt  to  assimilate  them  to  more  regular  types  : 
others,  again,  that  were  familiar  enough  to  be  noted 
as  anomalies,  so  that  it  was  felt  as  a  solecism  to 
assimilate  them.  E.g.,  the  pluperfect  active  of  most 
verbs  was  a  cumbrous  form,  and  the  cases  where  the 
aorist  did  not  sufficiently  express  its  sense  were  few  : 
no  ear  therefore  learnt  to  be  shocked  at  the  omission 
of  the  augment,!  while  many  ears  were  shocked  in- 
stinctively by  the  stuttering  noise  of  an  erer.  or  eTreTr. 
Again,  to-/x,ev,  tore  ij:  gave  place  to  otSa/xev,  -re,  as  people 
learnt  Greek  grammar  without  learning  comparative 

repws)  :  though  according  to  rule  the  comp.  adv.  would  be 
irepuffforepov. 

*  One  may  illustrate  by  an  example  in  another  language. 
Cicero  declined  to  pronounce  whether  "  Pompey  in  his  third 
consulship  "  should  be  described  as  Consul  Tertium  or  Tertio. 
Down  to  his  time,  a  third  consulship  was  all  but  unknown 
except  in  the  unique  case  of  Marius  :  but  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus,  people  were  forced  to  decide — in  favour  of  tertiuw, 
as  every  one  knows  who  has  seen  the  Pantheon  or  a  picture  of  it. 

f  'E/St/SA-tyTo  in  Luke  xvi.  20,  ffwereOeivro  in  John  ix.  22,  are 
the  most  certain  cases  of  an  augmented  plupf.  in  the  N. 
T.,  these  being  forms  to  which  there  is  no  euphonic  objection. 
It  may  have  counted  for  something,  that  in  the  oldest  Greek 
the  Z  augment  could  always  be  omitted. 

J  "Icr/mtv  never  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  at  all;  tare  as  an  imper. 
in  the  probable  texts  of  Eph.  v.  5,  James  i.  19  ;  but  as  an 
indie,  in  Heb.  xii.  17  only,  where  it,  like  to-curt  in  Acts  xxvi.  4, 
may  be  a  conscious  classicism. 


34     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

philology  ;  and  double  augments  were  in  some  cases 
eliminated,  though  in  others  they  were  introduced,  or 
either  retained  or  omitted  as  might  happen.*  We 
must  not  forget  that  we  have  to  do,  not  with  doctrinaire 
purists  correcting  the  usages  of  a  language  by  its 
supposed  principles  (like  the  revisers  of  the  American 
Prayer  Book,  who  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  wrote  not  only 
"who"  for  "which,"  but  "those  who"  for  "them 
that  "),  but  with  writers  whose  familiarity  with  usage 
was  limited,  and  who  therefore  sometimes  followed 
usages  that  were  not  the  best,  and  sometimes  sub- 
stituted deduction  for  usage  as  their  guide. 

With  respect  to  the  "  temporal  augment  "  of  verbs 
beginning  with  a  vowel  or  diphthong,  N.  T.  usage 
seems  to  differ  from  classical  in  some  details,  with- 
out any  consistent  rule  or  principle.  Certain  com- 
pound verbs  have  even  a  short  vowel  unaugmented 
—  7rpoopo>/x//7v  seems  to  be  certain  both  in  the  LXX. 
of  Psalm  xv.  (xvi.)  8,  and  in  the  quotation  of  it  in 
Acts  ii.  25.  Still  commoner  is  the  omission  of  aug- 
ment in  verbs  beginning  with  a  diphthong,  especially 
01  :  e.g.  €7raicrxvi/6rj  in  2  Tim.  i.  16  is  practically 
certain  ;  otKoSo/^o-ei/  in  Acts  vii.  47  has  the  authority 
of  BD,  followed  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  who  doubt  if 
the  latter  verb  ever  forms  oj/coS.  except  in  two  places 
in  the  Gospels.  Eu-  is  oftener  augmented  into  rjv-  than 
in  classical  Greek  :  evidence  sometimes  (e.g.  Mark  xiv. 


*  We  have  (in  the  best  texts)  d^ecrxo/x^  in  Acts  xviii.  14, 
dveixeaOe  in  2  Cor.  xi.  1,  and  perhaps  4,  instead  of  the  classical 
^ecrx-.  •jjmx.,  which  the  T.  K.  substitutes.  But  dTre/carecrrd^Ty  is 
certain  in  Matt.  xii.  ]3=Markiii.  5=Luke  vi.  10.  And  we 
get  side  by  side  in  the  same  writer  ^ve^d^aa.v  and  ave^ev 
(John  ix.  10,  14),  and  -^ve^y^vri  and  ijvoi^tv  (Rev.  iv.  1,  vi.  1 
etc.)  ;  besides  ihe  altogether  anomalous  dpe^x(^l/cu  (as  it  were 
assimilated  to  Q.V  c£x#cu)  °f  Luke  iii.  21. 


FORMATION  OF  PRETERITE  TENSES.    35 

55)  predominates  even  for  rjvpiorKov.  There  are  scarcely 
any  signs  in  the  N.  T.  of  the  tendency,  apparent  in 
mediaeval  and  dominant  in  modern  Greek,  to  put  the 
augment  at  the  very  beginning  of  compound  verbs, 
instead  of  after  the  prep.  It  is  no  exception  that 
the  correct  forms  are  always  *  cTrpo^revoj/,  -rcvcra, 
not  Trpoec/).  :  the  prep,  being  already  incorporated 
in  the  subst.  Trpo^rr/s  forms  part  of  the  stem  of  the 
denominative  verb.  On  the  same  principle  we  ought 
to  get  tbicuKovovv  :  but  in  fact  we  always  have  St^K. 

Irregularities  in  reduplication  are  few.  Probably 
in  Luke  i.  27,  almost  certainly  in  ii.  5,  we  should  read 
the  classical  e/AFT/crreu/xe^]/,  -vrj,  not  /xc/xv.  with  the  T.  R. 
But  in  Heb.  x.  22  we  have  the  exceptional  pepavrter/xeVot 
(as  the  second  p  is  not  doubled,  editors  hesitate  to 
aspirate  the  first),  and  in  Rev.  xix.  13  we  should 
probably  read  that  or  a  similar  form.f 

There  was  naturally  a  nearer  approach  made  to 
symmetry  and  uniformity  in  the  inflexion  of  particular 
tenses  than  in  the  formation  of  the  stem  of  each  tense. 
In  the  larger  class  of  Greek  verbs,  indeed,  the  inflexion 
of  each  tense  was  regular  enough  in  the  classical  lan- 
guage ;  but  there  were  three  tenses,  the  two  aorists  and 
the  perf.,  between  which  there  either  was  no  distinction 
of  sense,  or  the  distinction  was  tending  to  disappear. 
The  consequence  is,  that  we  find  three  points  in  which 
2nd  aorists  and  perfects  are  assimilated  to  1st  aorists. 
The  vowels  o  and  e  that  introduce  the  longer  2nd 

*  Except  perhaps  Jude  14  :  even  there  B  has  e?r/oo0.,  tf  €Trpoe<j>. 
The  latter  form  is  actually  quoted  from  a  Byzantine  writer  : 
but  here  it  is  unlikely  that  the  scribe  deliberately  intended 
the  double  augment.  He  had  it  in  one  place  in  his  copy,  in 
the  other  in  his  head  :  unluckily  we  cannot  tell  which  was 
which. 

f  We  are  reminded  of  the  Homeric  pepvTrw/jisva. 


36     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

aor.  terminations  are  changed  into  a — almost  *  con- 
stantly in  the  indie,  of  Treo-eu/,  where  indeed  €7reo-a 
(Acts  xxii.  7,  Rev.  xix.  10),  makes  a  fairly  regular  1st 
aor.,  but  very  frequently  also  in  forms  like  eA$aTo> 
(Matt.  vi.  10),  etXaro  (2  Thess.  ii.  13),  efya/xevos  (Heb. 
ix.  12);  not  to  speak  of  eiTra,  (Acts  xxvi.  15)  which 
existed  in  classical  times  and,  in  some  persons,  was 
the  usual  Attic  form — in  the  N.  T.  eiTrav  is,  by  MS. 
evidence,  much  commoner  than  etTrov,  but  not  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  latter. t 

The  3rd  person  pi.  of  the  perf.  is  several  times 
made  to  end  in  -a*/,  like  that  of  the  1st  aor. — Luke 
ix.  36,  John  xvii.  6,  7,  Acts  xvi.  36,  Rom.  xvi.  7, 
Col.  ii.  1,  James  v.  4,  Rev.  xix.  3,  xxi.  6.  (The 
true  reading  is  hardly  doubtful  in  any  of  these  places  : 
even  the  T.  R.  retains  the  form  in  -KCLV  in  John 
xvii.  7,  Rev.  xix.  3.  Perhaps  this  is  significant :  in 
both  places  we  get  perfects  and  aorists  approximating 
to  each  other  in  sense  or  form  :  and  the  approximation 
may  have  had  its  influence  on  the  writers,  as  well 
as  on  the  scribes  who  here  only  tolerated  the  excep- 
tional forms.) 

Again,  the  3rd  person  pi.  of  both  the  impf.  and 
the  2nd  aor.  takes  the  termination  -ocrav  often  in  the 
LXX.,  and  sometimes  (John  xv.  22,  24,  2  Thess.  iii. 

*  The  passage  where  the  MS.  evidence  is  least  decidedly  in 
favour  of  the  a  form  is  the  virtually  identical  one  in  Luke 
xxiii.  30,  Rev.  vi.  16.  Evidence  is  also  doubtful  in  the  LXX. 
of  Hos.  x.  8,  whence  the  words  are  derived.  Tischeiidorf 
reads  wi<raTe  in  St.  Luke  but  ircffere  in  Rev.,  Westcott  and  Hort 
-are  in  both. 

f  In  colloquial  modern  Greek,  we  not  only  have  such  aorists 
as  gXafia,  but  a  is  used  as  an  alternative  for  e  in  at  least  the 
2nd  person  sing,  and  pi.  of  the  impf.  [Oeldart's.  Guide-  to 
Modern  Greek,  p.  272  n.~| 


ASSIMILATION   OF   VERBAL  FORMS.     37 

6,  v.  L,  besides  the  quotation  in  Rom.  iii.  13)  in 
the  N.  T.  also.  (This,  however,  may  be  supposed 
rather  to  have  originated  in  differentiation  from  the 
1st  person  sing,  than  in  assimilation  to  the  1st  aor. 
form.)  This  and  the  last  are  called  Alexandrian 
forms  with  somewhat  better  right  than  others  cha- 
racteristic of  late  Greek  :  they  are  not  exclusively 
Hellenistic  nor  colloquial,  but  occur  in  Lycophron 
and  other  continuators  of  classical  literature  who 
wrote  at  Alexandria. 

But  there  are  cases  of  assimilation  in  the  opposite 
direction  to  at  least  the  first  and  last  of  these  three. 
There  is  strong  authority  for  the  termination  -KCS 
instead  of  -/cas  in  perfects  or  aorists  resembling  them, 
especially  in  several  passages  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and 
Revelation :  in  Rev.  ii.  3,  4,  5,  the  evidence  for 
KeKOTTia/ces  and  dc^Kes,  perhaps  for  TreVrcoKes,  seems  to 
preponderate.  (See  Westcott  and  Hort's  "  Notes  on 
Orthography/'  New  Testament  in  Greek,  vol.  ii.  p.  166.) 
And  the  3rd  pi.  impf.  of  verbs  in  -/u,  which  regularly 
ends  in  -o-ai/  preceded  by  the  stem  vowel,  is  assimi- 
lated to  that  of  contracted  verbs — most  certainly  in 
the  Acts  :  see  iii.  2,  iv.  35  for  eriOow,  iv.  33  and 
xxvii.  1  for  (O/TT-  and  Trap-)  eSt'Sow.  The  latter  forms 
are  quite  classical,  perhaps  commoner  than  those  in 
-o-av :  but  the  former  is  late,  though  justified  by 
analogies  in  the  Attic  inflection  of  the  sing. 

It  is  doubtful  how  far  assimilation  is  carried  in 
other  inflexions  of  verbs  in  -fja.  In  Acts  xiv.  17 
€/A7ri7rAcoi/  is  (as  far  as  the  termination  goes*)  without 
variant :  but,  of  other  forms  implying  a  pres.  in 

*  Some  MSS.  (but  not  here,  as  often,  the  best)  retain  v  in 
the  first  syllable  :  and  some  insert  //,  in  the  second. 


38     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

-aco,  Westcott  and  Hort  admit  none  into  their  text, 
and  regard  none  as  possibly  right  except  owiorav 
in  2  Cor.  iii.  1.  There  is  little  doubt  that  tcrrai/co  is 
the  form  of  the  pres.  generally  used.  "Irj^u  being  a 
more  "  irregular  verb,"  assimilations  to  "  regular  " 
ones  are  more  frequent.  'A^iouo-tv  in  Rev.  xi.  9  might 
be  a  mere  blunder,  or  be  written  -ovo-iv  as  a  contracted 
form  ;  cf.  d^cts  in  ii.  20  :  but  it  is  supported  by 
d</>to/x€i/in  Luke  xi.  4,  (rwtovo-w  in  Matt.  xiii.  13,  besides 
more  doubtful  cases  :  and  there  is  no  question  about 
the  still  more  anomalous  rjffritv  in  Mark  i.  34,  xi.  16. 
The  same  principle  appears  in  the  assimilation,  though 
the  vowel-change  is  the  converse  one,  of  e^eSoro  to 
e^eSero  in  Matt.  xxi.  33  =  Mark  xii.  1  =  Luke  xx.  9  ;* 
so  efc/cpe/xcro  in  Luke  xix.  48.  'A^eWrai,  which  cer- 
tainly occurs  in  St.  Luke  (v.  20,  23,  vii.  47-8)  and 
John  (xx.  23,  1  Ep.  ii.  12),  though  critical  texts  reject 
it  elsewhere,  is  a  little  less  strange  :  we  get  di/eWrat 
in  Herodotus,  and  other  analogous  forms.  We  may 
mention  here  the  preference  of  a  for  rj  in  the  1st 
aor.  of  verbs  in  -atVw  :  in  Luke  i.  79,  we  have  even 
[e7n,]<£avai,  which  justifies  </>av?7,  not  </>anrJ,  as  the 
accentuation  in  Rev.  viii.  12,  xviii.  23. 

Of  verbs  confessedly  irregular,  the  most  important 
N.  T.  variations  from  the  usual  inflexion  are  in  certain 
parts  of  the  verb  eti/at.  In  the  impf.  T^V  is  usual, 
and  the  pi.  rj/xe&x  seems  to  occur  (Matt,  xxiii.  30  bis, 
Acts  xxvii.  37,  perhaps  Gal.  iv.  3,  Eph.  ii.  3).  About 


*  Perhaps  the  fact  that  this  irregular  form,  like  dTreK 
(p.  34  n.),  runs  through  all  three  Gospels  is  to  be  ranked  as 
evidence  (though  one  such  case,  or  even  two,  is  far  short  of 
proof)  of  a  written  Greek  document  used  by  the  authors  of  all. 
Of  the  two  words  cited,  e^Sero  proves  most,  as  there  is  less 
evidence  of  its  frequent  use. 


VOWELS  IN   CONTRACTED    VERBS.      39 

equally  frequent  is  77?  for  the  2nd  sing.  (Matt.  xxv. 
21,  23,  John  xi.  21,  32,  xxi.  18,  Rev.  iii.  15).  Less 
common,  and  with  less  ground  in  analogy,  is  the 
3rd  imper.  r/ra>  (1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  James  v.  12). 

The  last  of  these  anomalies  that  we  need  notice  is 
the  formation  of  persons  other  than  the  1st,  and  of 
participles  and  infinitives,  of  contracted  verbs.  Verbs 
in  -ao>  regularly  make,  by  a  sort  of  return  to  first  prin- 
ciples, -ao-at  in  the  2nd  sing.  med.  (Luke  xvi.  25,  Rom. 
ii.  17,  etc.):  cf.  <£ay€<rat  KOL  TTitcrai  in  Luke  xvii.  8:  but 
an  opposite  tendency  appears  in  the  (originally  Ionic) 
&vvr)  of  Luke  xvi.  2,  for  Swcurai.  Further,  in  these 
verbs  there  is  often  an  apparent  uncertainty  between 
a  and  e,  perhaps  sometimes  between  e  and  o,  as  the 
vowel  ending  the  stem.  'Hpwrow  seems  decisively 
attested  in  Matt.  xv.  23,  and  has  some  evidence  in 
Mark  iv.  10  :  similarly  there  is  a  good  deal  of  authority 
for  KOTTLOVO-LV  in  Matt.  vi.  28,  for  VIKOVVTL  in  Rev.  ii.  7, 
17,  and  VIKOWTCIS  ibid.  xv.  2.  One  hardly  knows  how 
to  write  the  N".  T.  form  of  what  in  classical  Greek 
(but  in  a  different  sense)  is  tjjippLfjiao-Oai :  both  in 
Mark  xiv.  5  and  John  xi.  38  Tischendorf  adopts, 
and  Westcott  and  Hort  admit  as  possible,  the  forms 
eve/^pt/Aowro  and  e/x/3/oi/xou//,ei/os.  The  other  N".  T. 
instances  of  the  word  are  aorists,  which  might  come 
equally  well  from  -oyi.ai,  -ao-$ai,  or  from  -o9/*,ai,  -ovo-Oat. 

Conversely,  certain  verbs  that  normally  have  an 
e  stem  are  conjugated  with  a.  This  appears  to  be 
the  case  with  eXeav  for  -etV  in  the  LXX.  on  the  one 
hand,  and  in  SS.  Clement  and  Polycarp  on  the  other : 
eXeare  is  well  attested  in  Jude  23  (and  22,  if  we 
read  the  verb  at  all),  and  eAeah/ros  overwhelmingly  in 
Rom.  ix.  16  :  but  ibid.  18  the  evidence  preponderates 


40     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

for  eXeeT.  Here  again  in  the  great  majority  of  N.  T. 
passages  we  have  forms  that  would  suit  with  either 
pres.,  the  aor.  imp.  cXei/erov  being  very  frequent. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  eXXoya  in  Philem.  18  ;  but 
there  is  little  evidence  for  cXXoyaTat  (more  for  the 
anomalous  eXXoyaro)  in  Rom.  v.  13. 

There  is,  at  least  in  one  or  two  cases,  similar  un- 
certainty between  the  forms  e^ovScveo)  (or  efou#ei/e'w) 
and  -voco. 

It  is  judged  that  verbs  in  -oo>  always  make  the 
inf.  in  -olv  not  -ow,  except  irXrjpovv  in  Luke  ix.  31. 
Certain  other  forms  from  stems  in  o  raise  syntactical 
questions,  for  which  see  below  (p.  107-8).  But  we 
may  notice  here  the  Si&o  which  in  Rev.  iii.  9  seems 
to  stand  for  Si'Soyu,  and  the  (not  unnatural)  formation 
aTroStSow  which  is  not  improbable  in  xxii.  2.  In 
all  these  points,  it  is  hard  to  draw  the  line  between 
questions  of  inflexion  and  questions  of  orthography 
— the  latter  of  which  we  do  not  think  it  needful  to 
discuss.  And  in  nearly  all,  the  question  is  complicated 
with  that  of  uncertainties  of  reading.  For  a  full 
discussion  of  these,  we  must  refer  to  Westcott  and 
Hort's  Appendix  II.  We  can  only  say,  as  a  summary 
of  the  conclusions  there  arrived  at,  what  were  the 
general  habits  of  the  chief  groups  of  MSS.  in  re- 
producing or  disguising  what  we  may  regard  as  the 
spelling  of  the  N.  T.  writers.*  Apparently,  those 
MSS.  which  transmit  the  text  with  least  modifi- 
cation transmit  the  spelling  with  least  modification 
too;  though  here  we  have  to  allow  a  good  deal  for 

*  We  must  remember,  when  we  use  this  phrase,  that  in  the 
case  of  St.  Paul  at  least,  the  most  that  we  can  arrive  at  is  the 
practice,  not  of  the  Apostle,  but  of  his  various  amanuenses. 


VARIATIONS  OF  SPELLING.  41 

individualism^ — e.g.  Cod.  B  is  a  great  deal  too  fond  of 
the  diphthong  €t  in  place  of  the  simple  t,  while  K  has 
the  reverse  tendency.  But  spellings  (or  grammatical 
forms)  diverging  from  the  classical  type  were  intro- 
duced (as  substantive  various  readings  were)  very 
freely  by  the  second- century  transcribers  or  editors 
with  whom  the  so-called  "  Western  text "  arose.  On 
the  other  hand,  mediaeval  scribes  (at  least  those  of 
Constantinople  :  those  of  Southern  Italy  had  not  the 
requisite  scholarship)  made  a  conscience  of  suppressing 
such  forms ;  as  one  can  see  by  comparing  the  letters 
inked  over  by  the  "third  hand"  of  B  (in  the  10th 
century  ?)  with  the  original.  It  is  very  frequent  to 
find  the  v  I^XKVO-TLKOV  before  consonants  elaborately 
scratched  out  by  the  Stoptfomjs  in  cursive  MSS.,  which 
inserted  it  most  frequently  when  they  were  reproduc- 
ing an  ancient  text.* 

*  The  twelfth  century  Cod.  Ev.  604,  which  has  a  very 
ancient  and  interesting  element  in  its  text  very  unequally 
distributed,  has  the  v  (erased  or  otherwise)  102  times  in.  the 
first  12  cc.  of  St.  Luke,  and  only  15  times  in  the  last  12:  the 
difference  in  the  proportion  o£  substantive  "  pre- Syrian " 
readings  being  even  larger. 


42     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


III.  PARTICLES,  AND  COMPOSITION  OF  VERBS. 

In  the  late  stages  of  a  language  it  is  common 
for  words  to  have  their  distinctive  force  lost  or 
weakened  by  frequent  use,  so  that  it  is  felt  necessary, 
if  that  force  is  to  be  recalled,  to  emphasise  it  by  an 
accumulation  of  synonymous  words.  We  are  familiar 
with  this  phenomenon  in  the  Romance  languages 
compared  with  Latin  :  when  e.g.,  ipse  came  to  mean 
little  more  than  "  he,"  [se]me£  or  [se]ip8um  did  not 
seem  clearly  or  emphatically  to  express  "  himself,"  and 
people  said  \se\metipsissimum,  whence  medesimo  and 
meme.  In  the  same  way,  some  words  in  modern 
Greek  have  had  their  senses  weakened— e.g.  Treptcra-o- 
repos  has  come  to  mean  simply  "  more  "  (it  is  hardly 
so  vague  anywhere  in  the  !N.  T.,  but  see  Dan. 
iv.  33  Theod.) :  *  and  so  some  words  (particles  espe- 
cially) have  to  be  combined,  to  give  them  any 
distinctive  meaning. 

We  get  beginnings,  but  not  more  than  beginnings, 
of  this  tendency  in  the  Greek  of  the  N.  T.,  in  words 
like  TrapeKTOS,  ^TrepeKTrepwro-oG,  Karei/wTrtov,  /carei/ai/rt, 
aTreVavrt,  eTravcot — words,  for  the  most  part,  peculiar 
to  biblical  Greek.  They  are  in  fact  less  like  anything 
in  Attic  than  such  Homeric  forms  as  7rape'£  wroc,  K.r.X. 

*  "  Theodotion  "  must  be  accepted  as  a  conventional  name 
for  the  received  Greek  text  of  Daniel,  though  doubt  has  been 
thrown  on  its  being  really  his  :  just  as  the  Chigi  text  is  con- 
ventionally cited  as  "  LXX." 

f  Perhaps  eirdvu  always  means  more  than  the  simple  tirl. 
Comparing  Kev.  vi.  8  with  ibid.  2,  4,  5,  we  may  think  that, 
while  the  riders  in  human  form  sat  "  on  "  their  horses  and 
managed  them,  the  last  demon  or  spectre  only  appeared 
"  over  "  or  "  atop  of  "  his  horse. 


NON-SIGNIFICANT  COMPOUND  FORMS.  43 

With  these  compounded  or  emphasised  particles 
we  may  compare  the  cases  where  verbs  are  com- 
pounded with  two  prepositions  instead  of  one,  or 
even  where  a  compound  verb  is  used  instead  of  a 
simple,  without  anything  being  contributed  by  the 
composition  or  re-composition,  (here  again  we  have 
Homeric  parallels)  except  some  measure  of  emphasis. 
This  is  the  case  with  a7re/<Sexeor0at,  still  more  with 
a7T€K&v€cr@ai,  and  more  or  less  with  0.71-0  KoraXXao-o-cii/, 
SiaKareXeyxeo-flat,  StaTraparpi/^  (the  true  text  in  1  Tim. 
vi.  5),  e£avio-rdVai,*  €7riSiop#oTv.  eTTtKaraparo?,  eTrtcrwa,- 
»7,  f  KareTrtfrnyvai,  7rpoo-ava/:?aiv€iv,  7rpocravaTi$ecr$ai, 


So    again    with    di/a.TaTTecr#at,    aT 

aTTO^Xt/^eiv,     Scayvcjopifeiv,     Siayoyyv^ew, 

Sieyeipav,    Step/A^i/cudi/,    eKSi<o/ceiv    (probably), 

€i<6a[Ji/3ei(T0(U, 

eK7reipa£e«/,       cKTTOpvcvtiv,      evSwajJiovcrOaL, 

t,  €7ri7r6@r)<rL<s  and  cognate  words,  eT 

ti/,   KarayyeXXctv,   /caraypa^etv  (the  best 
attested  text  of  [John]  viii.  6,  if  not  8), 
Karao-vpeii/,  Kara^tXetv  (probably),  KarcuXoyetv,  Ka 
Trapo.rriKpa.lv  'tw  (-aoyxos),  Trapo/xota^ctv,  TreptaTrrctv, 
OapfJia, 


*  The  use  in  Acts  xv.  5  is  the  only  N.  T.  one  that  can  be 
called  classical.  But  e%avd<rTa<ns  is  found  in  Polyb.  V.  iv.  4, 
of  Hannibal's  men  "getting  up  out  of"  the  soft  snow  that 
lay  over  the  frozen  mass. 

f  The  verb  eTna-wdyeLv  is  late  but  not  exclusively  Biblical. 
The  subst.  is  formed  from  it,  because  the  simple  (rvvaywyr)  had 
a  special  meaning  fixed  in  usage.  In  2  Thess.  ii.  1  the  eiri 
though  redundant  is  not  meaningless  :  but  the  occurrence  of 
the  word  there  fixes  the  sense  in  Heb.  x.  25,  and  forbids  us  to 
think  of  an  "  additional  synagogue  "  or  meeting  of  Christian 
Jews,  after  that  in  which  they  shared  with  unbelieving  ones. 

|  AiaKaOaipetv  is  classical, 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


crwoiKo8o/X€ti',  crvVTTViyeiv,  o-txrTra/oaTrei]/,  vTraKorj.*  Most 
of  these  words  are  late,  some  exclusively  biblical  : 
and  when  the  words  are  used  in  classical  authors,  it 
is  in  other  senses  —  generally  senses  in  which  the  prep. 
has  more  distinctive  force,  t 

Still  no  doubt  the  faculty  for  forming  compounds 
of  the  classical  type  still  survives.  Words  like 
KaraKavxao-Oai,  Trpoairia&OaL  (St.  Paul  in  particular 
has  many  such  compounds  of  TT^O),  o-vvKaKOTraGtlv, 
crvvKOLKovxtlcrOai,  attest  this.  So  do  compound  words 
for  distinctive  Christian  ideas,  such  as  cu/ayei/i/av, 
ava^rjVj  crwcTTavpovo'Oa.L  '.  so  do  even  double  com- 
pounds like  at/Ti7rapeA.$€U/,  TrapetVaKros, 
TrpoeTrayyeAAeii/  and  TrpoKarayyeAAeiF, 
o-vvavairaveo-Oai  :  but  the  greater  proportion  of  words 
like  these,  compared  with  those  used  in  earlier 
Greek,  is  still  significant.  So  is  the  growth  of  com- 
pounds and  double  compounds  in  which  the  pre- 
positional elements,  if  not  without  meaning,  have 
only  an  indirect  one  as  contributing  to  the  general 
notion  of  the  verb,  e.f/.,  crvvaTrdyecrOai. 

*  Perhaps  this  word  (and  7ra/>a/co?7,  correlative  to  irapaKotieLV 
in  its  biblical,  non-classical  sense)  should  rather  be  reckoned 
among  words  formed  on  classical  lines  to  express  Christian 
thoughts. 

t  fag.  in  St.  Luke  i.  1  avaTa£a<r0ai  is  simply  "  to  set  in 
order."  In  Plut.  de  Sollert.  Aniw.  c.  12,  the  only  other 
passage  cited  for  the  word,  it  is  used  of  a  performing  elephant 
;<  goin^  through  "  his  exercises  "  over  again" 


CHAPTER   III. 

CHARACTERISTICS    OF   NEW   TESTAMENT   GREEK    IN   THE 
SYNTACTICAL    USE    OF   ARTICLES   AND    PRONOUNS. 

IN  general,  the  rules  for  the  use  of  the  art.  in 
N.  T.  Greek  are  just  the  same  as  in  classical ; 
what  difference  there  is  comes  from  the  growing 
laxity  of  a  decaying  language,  not  from  any  influ- 
ence peculiarly  Hellenistic.  For  in  biblical  Hebrew  * 
the  use  of  the  art.  is  as  nearly  identical  with 
the  Greek  as  can  be  expected  in  the  case  of 
languages  of  such  different  structure  :  and  in  conse- 
quence the  LXX.  had  not  tended  to  make  Hellenistic 
usage  in  this  point  diverge  from  classical.  It  had 
at  most  made  it  relatively  more  frequent  for  an  adj. 
or  attributive  clause  to  stand  after  the  subst.  with 
a  second  art.,  instead  of  between  the  art.  and  subst. 
We  can  scarcely  say  that  it  is  an  irregularity  that, 
as  indecl.  pr.  mi.  are  so  much  more  frequent  than  in 
pure  Greek,  the  art.  is  often  used  with  them  to 
supply  the  want  of  inflexion,  where  the  context  does 
not  call  for  it,  e.g.,  in  the  series  of  accusatives  in 

*  In  Aramaic  there  is  a  kind  of  postpositive  art.,  resembling 
the  Greek  much  less.  If  this  has  any  influence  on  the 
language  of  the  N.  T.,  it  is  (except  perhaps  in  the  Apocalypse 
— see  p.  51-2)  confined  to  the  modification  of  certain  words 
Grecised  and  used  almost  or  quite  as  pr.  nn. — e.g.,  Sara^as 
(so  always,  probably  even  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7,  where  T.  1{.  has 


46     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Matt.  i.  2-16.  (Tov  ~Bapa(3/3av  in  Luke  xxiii.  18, 
John  xviii.  40,  is  used  with  dramatic  fitness ;  it  is  the 
first  time  the  readers  have  heard  of  Barabbas,  but 
the  speakers  and  their  hearer  know  all  about  him.) 

There  are  however  instances  where  the  position, 
or  the  use  or  omission,  of  the  art.  cannot  be  justified, 
according  to  strict  grammatical  rule;  or  only  by 
supposing  a  far-fetched  and  improbable  refinement 
of  sense  to  be  intended.  E.g.  in  John  vi.  32  the 
sense — the  only  one  giving  a  reason  for  the  actual 
order  of  clauses — appears  to  be  TOV  IK  TOV  ovpavov 
aprov.  Still  more  decidedly  in  xii.  9,  12,  it  seems 
impossible  that  6  o^A-os  TTO\VS  can  mean  anything 
different  from  6  iroXvs  o^Xos :  to  say  (with  Butt- 
mann)  that  o^Xos  TroXv's  ranks  as  one  word  seems 
arbitrary,  and  would  prove  too  much.  Ibid.  viii.  44 
we  should,  in  better  Greek,  have  had  for  the  first 
clause  IK  Trarpos  TOV  8.,  if  the  sense  be,  as  commonly 
understood,  "  Ye  are  [born]  of  the  devil  as  father." 
And  in  the  last  clause,  if  6  waTrjp  OLVTOV  be  a  predicate, 
co-ordinate  with  I^CVCTT^S,  it  should  like  it  have  been 
anarthrous.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that,  from  a 
purely  grammatical  point  of  view,*  the  easiest  trans- 
lation of  the  verse  would  be  "  Ye  are  of  the  father 
of  the  devil  ...  he  "  (the  devil  at  least  as  probably 
as  his  father)  "was  a  murderer  .  .  .  because  his 

*  The  verse  was  probably  thus  understood  by  the  author  of 
the  Acta  Tlumwe  (c.  32  in  Tisch.  Acta  Apost.  Apocrypha). 
The  arguments  are  incommensurable  with  each  other,  in 
favour  of  this  interpretation,  that  it  was  adopted  by  a  Greek- 
speaking  Christian  of  the  second  century,  and  against  it, 
that  any  one  who  adopted  it  did  so  as  harmonising  with  the 
strange  superstitions  and  heresies  of  that  work.  Origen  in  loc. 
considers  the  constr.  ambiguous  :  he  does  not  speak  of  the 
startling  interpretation  as  though  it  were  exclusively  Gnostic. 


USE   OR  NON-USE   OF  ARTICLE.        47 

father  also  is  a  liar."  But  as  grammatical  considera- 
tions are  not  the  only  ones  to  be  taken  into  account 
on  a  point  of  exegesis,  so  it  is  important  to  know  how 
much  laxity  St.  John  allows  himself  in  the  matter, 
since  the  requirements  of  grammatical  rule  would  tell 
for  more  in  the  case  of  a  more  accurate  writer. 

In  Luke  i.  5,  the  best  attested  text  is  'HpwSou 
/3a(ri\€Q)<s  rfjs  'lovcWas.  The  insertion  of  TOV  before 
flacr.  in  the  received  text  (even  in  its  oldest  form, 
in  Cod.  A)  no  doubt  comes  from  a  sound  instinct 
as  to  what  was  elegant  Greek  :  but  one  could  hardly 
say  that  the  omission  of  the  art.  is  an  error.*  If  it 
be,  it  arises  from  assimilation  to  the  prevailing  usage 
of  the  LXX.,  and  so  indirectly  from  Hebrew  idiom, 
which  (like  English)  naturally  speaks  of  "  A.  king 
of  B."  (see  e.g.  Gen.  xiv.  1,  2,  9,  18).  Similarly  the 
art.  should  be  omitted  (here  the  insertion  is  less 
universal  in  the  later  text)  in  Mark  ii.  26  before 
dp^tepecos.  It  is  a  mistake  to  stake  the  accuracy 
of  the  Gospel  narrative  on  a  refinement  such  as  has 
been  raised  here,  that  the  event  took  place  "  in  the 
days  of  Abiathar,  the  famous  high  priest,"  but  net 
"  in  the  days  of  Abiathar 's  being  high  priest,"  since 
his  father  still  held  the  office. 

Still  more  is  it  a  mistake  to  build  theological  infer- 
ences on  the  use  or  non-use  of  the  art.  with  divine 
names  or  titles,  or  other  theological  terms.  No  doubt, 
we  ought  to  notice  whether  it  is  used  or  riot.  Where, 
as  in  Horn.  iii.  30,  v.  7,  two  words  are  balanced 

*  Certainly  'H/x^Sou  /tocrtAe'ws  'lovdaias  (without  T?ts)  would 
not  be  bad  Greek.  But  of  all  pr.  nn.,  names  of  countries 
in  -ia  are  those  that  most  constantly  have  the  art.  And 
1  his  is  not  arbitrary  :  they  are  strictly  fern,  adjectives,  "  the 
[country]  of  Judah  "  or  the  like. 


48     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

against  each  other,  one  with  the  art.  and  one  without, 
we  may  fairly  presume  that  there  is  a  reason  for  the 
difference :  and  even  when  the  omission  or  insertion 
is  less  pointed  than  this,  we  must  not  hastily  assume 
it  to  be  accidental.  But  neither  must  we  be  hyper- 
critical in  insisting  that  it  shall  be  significant ;  and  we 
have  the  less  right,  not  the  more,  to  be  so,  in  proportion 
to  the  importance  of  the  significance,  if  admitted. 

To  come  to  instances :  in  classical  writers  the 
"  God  "  of  so-called  natural  religion,  the  providential 
or  retributive  Ruler  of  the  world,  is  as  a  rule  spoken 
of  as  6  ®eos.  ©eos  by  itself  can  bear  the  same  sense, 
but  is  equally  likely  to  mean  "  a  god "  known  to 
mythology  (note  the  absence  of  the  art.  in  the  in- 
scription in  Acts  xvii.  23,  which  St.  Paul  takes  in  a 
monotheist  sense,  but  which  we  may  be  sure  was  not 
so  intended).  eO  $eos,  of  course,  can  only  bear  a  mytho- 
logical sense  if  the  god  has  been  named,  or  can  be 
identified  from  the  context.  In  Jewish  and  Christian 
writers,  on  the  other  hand,  ©eos  is  a  name  belonging 
to  One  only,  and  so  is  used  like  a  pr.  n.,  with  or 
without  the  art.  according  to  its  place  in  the  sen- 
tence :  and  beyond  one  or  two  broad  rules,  it  seems 
that  there  is  hardly  any  principle  involved  in  the 
retention  or  omission.  In  John  i.  1  fin.  6  ©eos  ty  6 
Aoyos  would  have  been  much  more  a  solecism  than 
a  heresy:  ©cos  is  without  the  art.,  not  because  St. 
John  means  to  teach  Arianism  (the  Word  was  a  divine 
being),  nor  because  he  pointedly  does  not  mean  to 
teach  Sabellianism *  ("God"  and  " the  Word"  were 

*    it    should   be   remembered   that   the  great  majority   o 
Catholic  Christians  have  known  this  text  in  the  form 
erat  Verbnm. 


ARTICLES   WITH   DIVINE  NAMES.      49 

one  and  the  same  :  cf.  1  Ep.  iii.  4,  where  it  is  meant 
that  dfjiapTia  and  cu/o/xia  are  equivalent  arid  coexten- 
sive), but  simply  because  6  Aoyos  is  subject  and 
®€os  predicate,  though  the  latter,  as  more  emphatic, 
stands  first.  Similarly,  it  is  grammatical  not  theolo- 
gical considerations  that  determine  whether  Ili/ev/xa 
(with  or  without  the  epithet  ayiov)  shall  take  the 
art.  Perhaps  in  a  place  like  Acts  xix.  2  we  might 
render  "  Did  ye  receive  any  holy  inspiration  ? "  and 
we  notice  that  in  viii.  17,  19  (of  the  parallelism  to 
which  the  author  was  probably  conscious),  the  words 
are  similarly  anarthrous ;  so  too  John  xx.  22.  But 
when  we  see  that  in  Acts  viii.  18,  xix.  6,  the  subst. 
has  the  art.,  in  the  latter  repeated  with  the  epithet 
also — that  it  is  so  used  in  a  similar  context  in  x.  44-7, 
and  in  Gal.  iii.  2 — we  perceive  that,  whether  it  be 
possible  or  no  to  draw  a  line  between  places  where  the 
word  designates  the  Person  of  the  Paraclete  and 
where  it  means  only  the  divine  gift  to  the  human 
spirit,  at  any  rate  the  line  cannot  be  drawn  mechani- 
cally, by  the  mere  presence  or  absence  of  the  article. 
Perhaps  there  is  more  significance  in  its  presence  or 
absence  with  the  names  Kvptos  and  Xpicrros;  its 
absence  showing,  in  contexts  where  the  art.  would 
be  grammatically  admissible,  that  the  words  are  used 
virtually  as  pr.  nn. — while  its  presence  of  course  is 
no  proof  that  they  are  not.  And  since  the  anarthrous 
Kvpios  is,  as  a  rule,  the  representative  of  the  Tetra- 
grammaton,  of  course  important  theological  issues 
are  raised,  when  the  term  is  used  of  Christ,  or  when 
Old  Testament  passages  containing  it  are  applied  to 
Him.  But  here  again  exegesis  is  a  higher  thing 
than  grammar,  Grammar  may  be  a  valuable 

4 


50     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

servant  to  theology  :  but  the  earth  is  disquieted  for  a 
handmaid  that  is  heir  to  her  mistress. — It  will  be 
understood,  that  in  Tit.  ii.  13,  2  Peter  i.  1,  we  regard 
©cot)  and  O-O>T%)OS  as  indicating  two  Persons,  though 
only  the  former  word  has  the  art.  The  gen.  ^i<m/, 
which  is  expressed  in  St.  Paul  and  supplied  in  St. 
Peter,  makes  O-<OT%)OS  sufficiently  definite  without  it : 
but  it  may  be  allowed  that  St.  Peter  would,  if  he  had 
used  the  art.  with  accuracy  up  to  the  standard  of 
the  First  Epistle,  either  have  omitted  the  art.  with 
both  nouns  or  have  supplied  it  with  both.  How 
little  right  we  have  to  assume  that  the  repetition 
or  non-repetition  of  the  art.  with  co-ordinate  nouns 
implies  a  difference  in  their  relations  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  Matt.  xxi.  12  with  what  is  certainly 
the  true  text  of  Mark  xi.  15,  or  Acts  xv.  6  with 
that  of  xvi.  4. 

Equally  wrong  is  the  attempt  to  argue  from  the 
use  or  non-use  of  the  art.  with  vo/xos  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  whether  he  means  by  the  word  the  Mosaic 
Law  or  the  Divine  Law  in  general.  Careful  study 
of  such  passages  as  Rom.  ii.  23-27  or  vii.  7-25,  will 
show  that  in  almost  every  case  where  the  word  occurs, 
a  definite  reason  can  be  assigned  for  its  having  or  not 
having  the  art.  ;  but  that  these  reasons  are,  in  the 
first  instance,  purely  such  as  arise  from  the  place  of 
the  word  in  the  structure  of  the  sentence.  It  is  only 
indirectly,  and  in  some  passages,  that  the  fact  of  the 
word  holding  different  places  in  the  sentence  shows 
that  its  sense  is  not  quite  the  same.*  It  is  the  more 

*  We  may  give  in  illustration  a  gloss  on  the  former  of  the 
passages  referred  to.  "  Thou  who  boastest  of  living  under  a 
law,'  —as  we  should  say,  "  of  enjoying  a  revelation,"  or  as 


WITH  PROPER  NAMES  AS  PREDICATES.  51 

possible  to  trace  a  grammatical  reason,  and  to  recognise 
that  we  need  not  look  for  a  theological,  in  St.  Paul's 
practice  in  this  respect,  if  we  first  have  recognised 
that  the  cases  in  which  the  art.  can  be  omitted  and 
inserted  in  Greek  are  not  exactly  the  same  in  which 
it  is  desirable  to  omit  or  insert  it  in  a  fluent  English 
translation. 

The  one  New  Testament  usage  of  the  art.  which 
may  fairly  be  called,  not  merely  lax  but  systematically 
incorrect,  is  one  confined  to  the  Apocalypse.  In  vi.  8, 
viii.  11,  xii.  9,  xx.  2,  pr.  nn.  stand  as  predicates,  and 
ought  not,  according  to  correct  Greek  usage,  to  have 
the  art.  as  they  have.  (The  art.  in  the  first  passage, 
and  the  former  one  in  the  last,  are  not  textually 
certain ;  but  in  the  first  at  least  the  omission  is 
probably  due  to  the  instinct  of  Greek  transcribers, 
and  the  insertion  to  their  fidelity).  In  xix.  13  the 
art.  is  more  defensible  :  "  The  Word  of  God  "  is  so 
absolutely  and  necessarily  One,  that  the  art.  forms 
actually  part  of  His  name  :  it  would  not  adequately 
designate  Him  without  it.  Similarly  we  might 
defend  6  Sta/2oAos  in  xx.  2 — it  is  equivalent  to  a 
pr.  n.  with  the  art.,  but  not  (John  vi  70)  without  it. 

Moslems  talk  of  "  people  of  a  book," — "  dost  thou,  by  breaking 
the  law  "  under  which  thou  livest,  "  dishonour  God  ?  Cir- 
cumcision is  profitable,  if  thy  life  be  according  to  law  :  but  if 
thou  be  a  law-breaker,  thy  circumcision.  ...  If  therefore 
the  uncircumcision  keep  the  righteous  ordinances  of  the 
law  " — that  law  which  thou  knowest.  whereof  thou  boastest — 
•'shall  not  .  .  .  and  [shall  not]  the  natural  uncircumcision, 
accomplishing  the  law,  judge  thee,  who  usest,"  St.  Paul  might 
have  said,  "  tlie  writings  and  tho  ceremonial  seal  [of  the  law] 
to  break  the  law  ? "  but  what  he  does  in  fact  say  is  equivalent 
to  "  usest  Scripture  and  circumcision  for  law-breaking  " — 
only  makest  thyself  the  more  a  transgressor,  because  thou 
hast  these  things  to  transgress. 


52  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

But  6  Saravas,  taking  it  as  actually  a  pr.  n.?  cannot 
be  right :  perhaps  however  St.  John  remembers  that 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  the  word  is  still  on  the  same 
footing  as  AtaySoXos — that  it  is  only  with  the  art.  that 
it  is  equivalent  to  a  pr.  n. 

The  primitive*  pronominal  use  of  the  art.  has 
come  a  step  nearer  to  extinction  in  the  !N.  T.  than 
in  Attic.  Not  only  is  it  confined  to  the  phrases  with 
the  particles  //,eV  and  Se — not,  it  is  true,  to  the  par- 
ticular case  where  these  are  opposed  to  each  other ; 
for  we  have  both  ol  //,eV  answered  by  aAXot  [8e]  in 
John  vii.  12  (if  not  in  Matt.  xvi.  14),  and  ol  6V, 
6  Se,  77  6V,  more  rarely,  01  /x,eV,  in  plain  narrative  in 
Matt.  ii.  5,  9,  Luke  i.  29,  Acts  i.  6,  etc.  : — but  it  is 
apparently,  with  pne  exception,  only  used  in  the 
nom.  masc.  and  fern.  sing,  and  pi., — in  the  forms,  in 
fact,  that  begin  with  the  aspirate,  not  with  T.  In 
Eph.  iv.  11  we  have  TOVS  p\v  .  .  .  rovs  Se  .  .  .  TOVS  8e 
.  .  .  but  in  Mark  xii.  5  we  should  read  ovs,  and  so 
everywhere  where  neuters  or  oblique  cases  occur  in 
phrases  of  this  type.  And  even  in  the  nom.  it  is 
only  in  the  masc.  sing,  that  we  can  tell  (since  the 
accents  of  our  modern  text  do  not  represent  a  primi- 
tive tradition)  whether  the  pron.  is  of  the  form 
identical  with  the  art.  or  with  the  rel.  The  latter, 
after  becoming  almost  extinct  in  the  earlier  Attic 
(KOL  05  was  rare,  ^  8'  os  apparently  only  colloquial), 
becomes  frequent  from  Demosthenes  onwards  with 
[jLtv  and  Se  in  antithetical  clauses.  tNOs  Se  a7r€KpiOrj 
avTols,  which  is  strongly  attested  in  John  v.  1 1 ,  would 

*  Of  course  the  poetical  archaism  of  Aratus,  quoted  in  Acts 
xvii.  28,  is  no  instance  of  N,  T.  nor  even  of  real  Alexandrian 
idiom, 


FREQUENCY  OF  PERSONAL  PRONOUNS.  53 

hardly  have  been  admitted  in  Attic  of  any  period  : 
but  if  rj  8'  os  or  KOI  os  ...  fyrj  was  Greek,  a  writer 
like  St.  John  felt  that  there  was  no  reason  why  this 
should  not  be.  tXOs  8c  OVK  eA.a/3ei/  in  Mark  xv.  23  is 
still  better  attested,  and  still  further  from  Attic 
usage. 

"  The  personal  pronouns  are  used  much  more  fre- 
quently in  the  N".  T.  than  in  ordinary  Greek " 
(Winer).  As  regards  the  nom.,  the  same  rule  may 
fairly  be  said  to  be  observed  as  in  the  classical 
language — that  a  pron.  as  subject  to  a  finite  verb 
is  not  expressed  except  when  emphatic,*  though 
Matt.  viii.  7,  x.  16,  etc.,  may  lead  us  to  think  a  very 
slight  degree  of  emphasis  suffices.  But  in  the  oblique 
cases  it  is  usual  to  have  pronouns  expressed  which  in 
classical  Greek  would  probably  have  been  left  to  be 
understood,  and  not  unusual  to  have  them  repeated 
when  in  classical  Greek  one  expression  would  certainly 
have  been  enough. 

It  is  not  certain  to  which  element  of  the  N.  T. 
language,  the  modern  or  the  Hebraising,  this  fre- 
quency of  pronouns  is  to  be  ascribed.  In  Hebrew 
their  oblique  cases  are  expressed  by  suffixes,  which 
can  be  inserted  or  repeated  with  less  cumbrousness 
than  independent  words ;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
frequency  of  pronouns  is  observable  in  modern  Greek 
generally,  and  it  hardly  seems  as  though  so  funda- 
mental a  matter  of  idiom  as  this  could  arise  only 

*  In  the  ait  A^yeis,  av  elrras  of  the  last  chapters  of  the  Gospels, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  <rv  is  emphatic,  though  it  may  be 
doubtful  what  the  point  of  the  emphasis  is — whether  "  You 
say  that,  not  I  :  you  are  responsible  for  putting  it  that  way," 
which  is  supported  by  Luke  xxii.  70  ;  or  taking  the  words  as 
interrogative,  "  Is  that  question  your  own?"  cf.  John  xviii,  34. 


54  LANGUAGE  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

from  the  influence  of  biblical  language  upon  popular. 
Moreover,  the  forms  multiplied  or  repeated  are  almost 
exclusively  the  unemphatic  enclitic  ones  ;  *  these,  like 
the  Hebrew  suffixes,  were  in  their  own  nature  easier 
to  multiply,  though  it  may  be  true  that  their  likeness 
to  suffixes  encouraged  their  use  in  reproducing  sen- 
tences of  Hebraic  type. 

Certainly  it  is  in  the  most  Hebraising  books— the 
Apocalypse,  and  after  this  the  Synoptic  Gospels  — 
that  this  redundant  use  of  pronouns  is  most  frequent : 
see  Rev.  i.  14-16,  ii.  13,  etc.,  Matt.  i.  19,  iii.  4,  vi.  3, 
4,  etc.  The  only  convincing  instances  that  it  is  possible 
to  give  are  cases  where  the  pron.  is  repeated — even 
in  Matt.  i.  19  it  would  be  rash  to  say  that  a  more 
classical  writer  would  have  omitted  one  or  the  other 
avrrjv.  But  in  sentences  of  the  common  type  ev  TU> 
o-7retpctv  GLVTOV  (Matt.  xiii.  4),  we  see  a  characteristically 
Hellenistic  use  of  the  pron.  as  well  as  of  the  prep., 
the  whole  constr.  being  equivalent  to  a  common 
Hebrew  one. 

Not  less  characteristically  Hellenistic  is  the  use 
of  the  enclitic  gen.  of  the  personal  pronouns,  to  the 
almost  complete  exclusion  of  the  adjectival  possessives. 
The  latter  are  never  used  unless  emphatic :  when 
used,  they  always  have  the  art.  (Matt,  xviii.  20, 
Mark  viii.  38,  etc.),  except  where  they  stand  as 
predicates  (Matt.  xx.  23  —  Mark  x.  40,  John  xiii.  35, 
xiv.  24,  xv.  8,  xvi.  15,  xvii.  10,  2  Cor.  viii.  23;  Luke 
xv.  31,  John  xvii.  6,  9,  10,  Luke  vi.  20;  John  iv. 
34,  Phil.  iii.  9  really  come  under  this  principle, 

*  Modern  Greek  has  an  enclitic  pron.  of  the  8rd  person, 
TOV,  TOV,  etc.  :  apparently  rather  apocopated  from  avrbv,  CLVTOV, 
etc.,  than  a  revival  of  the  pronominal  use  of  the  art. 


USE  OF  POSSESSIVE   GENITIVE.        55 

though  the  predication  is  less  direct).  St.  Paul  some- 
times writes  6  {yxoii/  instead  of  6  {yx-e'repos  (Rom.  xvi. 
19,  1  Cor.  vii.  35,  ix.  12,  xvi.  18,  2  Cor.  i.  6,  vii.  7, 
15,  viii.  14,  xii.  19,  xiii.  9,  Phil.  i.  19,  25,  ii.  30, 
Col.  i.  8,  1  Thess.  iii.  7)  :  but  this  usage  is  confined  to 
his  writings,  and  in  them  to  the  pron.  of  the  2nd 
person  pi.  (To  e*€iVw  7re/o<Weiyx,a  in  2  Cor.  viii.  14  of 
course  is  no  exception,  as  there  is  no  possessive  pron. 
correlative  to  eKetvos.) 

The  gen.  of  the  pronouns  of  the  1st  and  2nd 
persons  sing.,  when  used  possessively,  is  always  of  the 
enclitic  form,  except  where  emphasised  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  another  pron.  (Rom.  i.  12.  xvi.  13),  and  in  the 
one  case  (according  to  the  probable  text)  of  Matt.  xvi. 
23,  where  also  the  pron.  is  emphatic  :  and  it  generally, 
but  not  always,*  holds  the  position  of  a  suffix  after 
the  subst.  of  the  thing  possessed.  In  cases  where  this 
normal  order  is  departed  from,  there  seems  always  to 
be  a  definite  reason.  The  pron.  stands  first  :  (1)  when 
it  forms  a  predicate  (Luke  xxii.  53,  Eph.  ii.  10)  or  is 
otherwise  emphatic  (Luke  xii.  30,  Phil.  iii.  20);  (2) 
when  the  relation  indicated  by  the  gen.  is  a  natural 
and  necessary  one  —  e.g.,  that  of  the  body  or  soul,  or 
parts  of  the  body  or  qualities  of  mind,  to  the  person  to 
whom  we  ascribe  them.  Thus  we  get 


*  There  appear  to  be  in  the  whole  N.  T.  389  cases  where  pov 
stands  after  the  governing  subst  ,  41  where  it  is  before  it.  No 
difference,  other  than  the  accidental  one  of  more  or  fewer 
cases  arising  for  the  principle  of  the  text  to  be  applied,  can 
be  traced  in  different  authors,  though  accidental  differences 
are  large.  /£«/.  in  Heb.  we  never  (except  in  quotations  and 
the/.  Z.  in  x.  34)  get  the  possessive  pov  at  all  :  in  the  Catholic 
Epistles  never  before  its  case,  and  in  the  Apoc.  only  once.  But 
we  have  crov  before  its  case  three  times  in  3  John  (2,  3,  6),  and 
eight  times  in  Apoc. 


56  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

o-co/^a  (Mark  xiv.  8,  si  vera  1.),  evoSourat  o-ov  rj  i/^x?7  (3  John 
2),  e/2pefeV  JJLOV  rousTroSas  (Luke  vii.  44,  45,  perhaps  46), 
porjOei  fjiov  rfj  aTricrTLa  (Mark  ix.  24),  /xaprvpowTcov  crov 
rrj  aXvjOcuji.  (3  John  3) ;  see  also  John  vi.  54-6.  And 
the  principle,  as  above  stated,  explains  sentences  like 
OLKOVWV  fjiov  TOVS  Aoyovs  (Matt.  vii.  24,  26),  tVa  JJLOV  VTTO 
rrjv  (TTeyrjv  elo-eXOys  (viii.  8,  cf.  Luke  xii.  18);  but 
(ibid.)  6  Trat?  (JLOV,  for  it  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of 
course  that  he  should  have  a  servant  as  a  house. 
Yet  we  have  avros  jttou  aSeA.<£os  (xii.  50),  and  eXe^o-ov 
IJLOV  TOV  viov  (xvii.  15),  the  relationship  being  closer  : 
so  ov  Swarot  /xov  eti/at  fjiaOrjTrjs  (Luke  xiv.  26,  27),  and 
even  x/oovt^et  pov  6  /cv/otos  (Matt.  xxiv.  48,  true  text). 
These  instances  show,  however,  that  it  is  rather 
arbitrary  where  the  line  is  drawn  as  to  which  order 
is  more  appropriate.  In  almost  any  of  these  cases, 
the  pron.  could  have  come  after  the  subst.  ;  perhaps 
the  case  where  it  is  hardest  to  account  for  its  coming 
before  it  is  yevo-crat  JJLOV  TOV  ^LTTIOV  (Luke  xiv.  24) 
Even  there  we  may  say  that  the  order  brings  out  the 
sense,  "  They  shall  not  be  my  guests,  not  be  received 
to  my  table,"  instead  of  "  They  shall  not  enjoy  the 
good  supper  that  I  had  prepared." 

Even  if  we  are  right  in  considering  these  uses  of 
the  gen.  and  ace.  of  the  personal  pronouns  as  being 
commended  to  the  !N".  T.  writers  by  their  analogy 
to  the  Semitic  use  of  pronominal  suffixes,  still  there 
is  in  them  no  transgression  of  the  rules  of  Greek 
grammar  ;  but  at  most  a  deviation  from  the  elegances 
of  Greek  style,  perhaps  only  a  preference  for  the 
simpler  or  more  Hebraic  among  alternative  Greek 
idioms.  We  come  somewhat  nearer  to  actual  viola- 
tion of  the  rules  of  classical  grammar,  when  we  have 


REDUNDANT  USE  OF  PRONOUNS.   57 

sentences  beginning  with  a  participial  clause,  having 
a  subst.  or  pron.  in  it,  and  then  in  the  principal 
sentence  have  a  pron.  which  is  a  mere  repetition  of 
this.  If  they  are  in  the  same  case  and  constr.,  the 
second  pronoun  is  redundant,  not  only  in  the  sense 
that  it  might  be  omitted  without  loss  in  clearness  and 
with  gain  in  elegance,  but  in  the  sense  of  having  no 
proper  place  in  the  sentence  :  and  if  the  foregoing 
clause  be  a  gen.  abs.,  this  is  itself  an  irregular  exten- 
sion of  the  use  of  that  constr.,  which  is  proper  only 
when  there  is  no  relation  in  the  sentence  calling  for 
another  case. 

We  have  e.g.,  a  quite  regular  sentence  in  Matt.  ix. 
27,  KOL  TrapdyovTL  eK€i$€i/  rw  'Irj(rov  rjKoXovOrjcrav  &vo 
rv<£Aot ;  and  so  again  in  the  next  ver.,  IXQovri  Se  ets 
rr]v  oiKiav  7rpo(rf]\0av  avrC)  ol  Tv<f>\oi.  Again,  it  is 
equally  regular,  when  in  ver.  32  we  have  a  gen.  abs. 
introducing  the  next  incident,  avruv  Se  e^cp^o/xo/wv 
iSov  TrpocrrjveyKav  avro)  KOX^OJ/  8aijU,oi/i£oju,ei/oi/«  But  in 
v.  1  we  have  (according  to  the  more  probable  text) 
a  sentence  constructed  on  the  latter  type  where 
grammatical  rule  calls  for  the  former,  /cafliVai/To?  avrov 
7rpocrr)X.6av  aura)  *  ot  fiaOrp-al  avrov  :  so  viii.  1,*  5,*  28,* 
xxi.  23,*  xxiv.  3,  xxvi.  6,  7,  and  nearly  so  xvii.  22. 
One  may  see  a  little  more  reason  for  the  use  of  the 
two  cases  in  i.  18,  20,  xxii.  41  :  and  in  general,  the 
gen.  abs.  may  be  defended  where  the  second  mention 
of  its  subject  does  rxot  come  till  far  on  in  the  sentence, 
or  where  (as  in  Mark  v.  21)  its  case  is  not  constructed 
in  relation  to  the  main  sentence,  but  depends  upon  a 

*  In  the  first  passage  there  is  high  but  limited  authority  for 
omitting  the  pron..  and  in  the  next  four  there  is  some,  some- 
times much,  for  assimilating  the  constr.  to  that  of  viii.  2!>. 


58  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

prep.  But  what  can  be  said  of  a  constr.  like  that 
which  occurs  as  a  variant  in  some  of  these  places,  and 
without  variation  in  Matt.  viii.  23  ? — e/x/Savri  aura)  ets 
TrXoiov  rjKo\.ov0rj(rav  avraS  ot  fJiaOrjTal  avrov.  Plainly 
here  the  second  aura)  is  in  the  strictest  sense  redund- 
ant :  and  the  use  of  the  first  in  the  dat.  shows  that 
we  are  not  hypercritical,  in  saying  that  that  case 
would  have  been  more  correct  than  the  gen.  abs.  in 
sentences  like  that  cited  from  v.  1. 

This  irregularity,  in  one  form  or  the  other,  is 
somewhat  more  frequent  in  Matt,  than  elsewhere  ; 
chiefly  because,  as  in  the  instances  cited,  St.  Matthew's 
favourite  formula  Trpoo-^A^ei/  or  TrpocreXOw  avra>  lends 
itself  so  easily  to  it.  But  it  is  in  fact  common  to  all 
the  historical  books,  except  St.  John's  Gospel :  he 
does  not  misuse  the  gen.  abs.,  because  he  makes  rare 
use  of  it,  as  of  other  idiomatic  Greek  constructions. 
In  St.  Luke's  Gospel  the  irregularity  is  rare,  for 
a  similar  reason  :  with  him  the  gen.  abs.  is  almost 
superseded  by  the  Hebraistic  tv  TW  c.  infin.  But 
even  there  xxii.  53,  xxiv.  41 — perhaps  xxiv.  5  and 
one  or  two  more — are  instances  though  not  harsh 
ones :  xx.  1  has  not  the  redundant  pron.  in  the 
second  clause,  but  has  the  irregular  gen.  abs.  in  the 
first.  And  in  Acts  there  are  several  cases  as  decided 
as  any  in  Matt,  or  Mark — iv.  1,  x.  19,*  xvi.  16, 
xix.  30,  xxi.  17,  xxv.  7  :  while  xxii.  17  is  a  compound 
instance,  and  perhaps  the  harshest  in  the  whole  New 
Testament,  except  Mark  vi.  22.  In  the  last  cited 
passage,  no  one  can  doubt  that  any  correct  Greek 

*  Here,  as  in  Matt.  v.  1,  B  is  "  subsingular  "  in  omitting 
the  pron.  In  several  of  the  other  passages  there  are  variants, 
but  not  of  much  authority. 


IN  RELATIVE  AND  OTHER  SENTENCES.  59 

author  would  have  written  yevo/xeV^s  i^epas  CVK.,  ore 
.  .  .  raAiAatas,  tier  €\0  over  a  rj  Ovydrrjp  .  .  .  /cat  op^cra/xeV?/, 
ypeo-tv  K.T.X,  2  Cor.  iv.  18  is  perhaps  the  only  example 
of  this  irregularity  in  St.  Paul :  there  the  pron.  is 
^u,as,  not  aura's,  but  the  gen.  abs.  is  redundant  in  just 
the  same  way. 

Another  redundant  use  of  the  oblique  cases  of 
auros  is  in  relative  sentences ;  which  may  perhaps  be 
thought  to  have  furnished  the  type  to  which  Matt, 
viii.  23  is  conformed.  In  Hebrew,  the  relative  is  an 
indecl.  particle — in  late  Hebrew  hardly  more  than  an 
inseparable  prefix — so  that,  to  define  its  constr.,  it 
is  necessary  to  insert  a  pron.  or  pronominal  adv.  at 
the  proper  place  in  the  sentence :  just  as  in  modern 
Greek  or  in  vulgar  modern  English  we  get  Trpay/xa 
OTTOV  Sei/  TO  voo-Ti/JLevofjiaL*  "  a  thing  which  I  don't  like 
it."  The  reproduction  of  this  constr.,  not  unknown 
in  Hellenistic  Greek  generally,f  is  carried  very  far 
in  the  Apoc. :  see  iii.  8,  vii.  2,  9,  xii.  6,  14,  xiii.  12, 
xvii.  9,  xx.  8.  Mark  xiii.  19,  OXtyis  oca  ov  ytyovw 
TOiavTr),  is  similar  to  Rev.  xvi.  18,  otos  OVK  eyeVero 
.  .  .  TT/Xt/covros  crewr/xos  oimo  /xeyas :  but  while  in  the 
latter  the  last  clause  is  no  doubt  redundant  as  it 
stands  (even  apart  from  the  fact  that 
scarcely  more  than  a  mere  equivalent  to 
even  there,  and  much  more  in  Mark  1.  c.,  the  demonstr. 
may  be  held  to  be  rather  transposed  than  to  be 

*  Sophocles'  Romaic'  Grammar,  §  164.  1.  He  says  the 
constr.  can  be  used,  even  if  the  rel.  is  inflected. 

f  There  is  only  one  unmistakable  instance  in  the  N.  T. 
outside  the  Apoc.,  Mark  i.  7  =  Luke  iii.  16.  In  all  other  cases, 
either  the  pron.  has  another  constr.  to  legitimate  it,  or  there 
is  authority  for  its  omission.  But  there  is  little  doubt  that 
it  should  stand  in  Mark  vii.  25,  and  there  if  retained  it  is 
certainly  redundant. 


60  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


exactly  redundant.      ^Utoyxos  eyeVero  yue'yas,  T 

oto?   ov  K    eyeVero    K.r.X.    would    be  quite  grammatical 

Greek  :    and  (waiving  the  question  of   the  peculiar 

coDstr.  of  the  first  words  in  St.   Mark),  co-rat  OXtyis 

Toiavrrj  ota  ov  yeyovev  would  be  not  only  grammatical 

but  easy  —  perhaps   more    elegant   than  if  ota  stood 

alone. 

We  have  thus  far  spoken  of  avros  when  used  as 
a  personal  pron.,  as  it  confessedly  is  in  all  Greek,  in 
its  oblique  cases.  But  we  have  to  consider  the  question, 
Is  the  word  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  mere 
personal  pron.  in  the  nom.  also  1  It  is  no  proof  to 
the  contrary,  that  it  "  never  occurs  without  a  certain 
degree  of  emphasis  "  (Winer)  ;  for  this  is  true  of  the 
nom.  of  all  personal  pronouns  :  the  question  we  have 
to  consider  is,  whether  it  is  not  used  where  the  only 
thing  to  be  emphasised  is  the  mention  of  the  person. 

Now  where  avros  is  used  of  the  principal  agent,  as 
distinguished  from  other  persons  (Mark  ii.  25,  avros  KOL 
ol  fj.€T  avrovj  etc.),  of  course  the  use  is  strictly  classical. 
It  is  not  incorrect  even  in  sentences  like  Matt.  i.  2  1  , 
where  avros  yap  trwo-et  means  more  than  o-oxret  yap,* 
or  Mark  iv.  38,  where  auros  means,  "  He,  the 
principal  person  of  the  story,"  as  distinguished  from 
the  disciples  named  in  ver.  34,  who  have  been  spoken 
of  since  by  pronouns  and  3rd  persons  of  verbs  : 
though  the  use  in  sentences  like  one  or  other  of  these 
is  relatively  more  frequent  than  in  classical  Greek. 
In  Matt.  iii.  11,  xi.  14,  xii.  50,  and  elsewhere,  e^ai/os, 

*  Best  translated  with  the  R.  V.,  "  it  is  He  that  shall  save." 
Even  if  there  be  a  reference  to  the  etymology  of  the  Name 
recorded  in  Ninm.  xiii.  10,  anything  that  suggested  that 
reference  would  be  a  gloss  rather  than  a  translation. 


IN  RELATIVE  AND  OTHER  SENTENCES.  61 

or  sometimes  OUTOS,  would  be  more  natural  or  more 
elegant,  though  we  might  not  say  that  avrds  is  im- 
possible. The  same  might  be  said  of  some  passages 
in  St.  Paul  and  John,  Eph.  ii.  14,  Col.  i.  17,  John 
Ep.  I.  iii.  24,  iv.  13,  15,  being  the  most  marked.  But 
the  most  certainly  unhellenic  use  of  the  word  is 
one  confined  to  the  Apocalypse  (xiv.  10,  xix.  15 — not 
only  iii.  20,  but  xiv.  17,  and  prob.  xvii.  11  are 
different)  and  St.  Luke's  Gospel ;  which  in  this  as  in 
other  points  is  more  Hebraistic  than  the  others  in 
the  method  of  introducing  narratives,  though  some- 
times more  classical  in  their  substance.  Kat  avrds 
in  Luke  i.  22,  ii.  28,  v.  1,  17,  viii.  1,  22,  xvii.  11, 
xix.  2,  Kat  avrrj  in  ii.  37,  Kat  avroi  in  xiv.  1,  xxiv.  14 
are  plainly  as  Hebraistic  as  the  Kat  eyeVero  ei/  rw  .  .  . 
or  Kat  l$ov  that  usually  precede  them  :  and  these  are 
only  the  clearest  cases,  shading  off  through  passages 
like  iv.  15,  v.  14,  xv.  14,  into  others  like  v.  16,  vi.  20, 
etc.,  where  avros  often  stands  without  Kat,  and  in  any 
case  does  not  go  beyond  the  usage  of  the  other  Gospels. 
With  regard  to  the  use  of  the  accented  or  the 
enclitic  forms  of  the  oblique  cases  of  the  personal 
pronouns,  it  is  only  in  the  case  of  the  1st  person 
(e/tie,  e/xor,  C/AOI  as  distinct  from  /xe  K-r.A.)  that  we 
have  direct  evidence.  In  modern  Greek,  the  rule  is 
stated  as  absolute  (Soph.,  Rom.  6rV.,  §  160-2)  that 
enclitic  pronouns  are  not  used  after  prepositions:  and 
modern  usage  is  the  more  worth  attending  to,  because 
here  we  have  facts,  not  the  theories  of  grammarians 
transmitted  by  scribes  or  printers.  But  in  the 
1ST.  T.  there  is  one  frequent  exception  to  this  rule,  in 
the  combination  Trpos  /xe,  which  we  find  often,  even 
when  the  pron.  has  no  small  emphasis.  In  John 


62  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

vi.  44,  45,  the  reading  varies  between  TT/OOS  /x€  arid  - 
c/xe:  in  ver.  35-7  we  get  the  two  side  by  side,  and  are 
not  surprised  at  the  unemphatic  form  being  used 
when  the  emphatic  precedes  it.  But  in  ver.  65,  and 
in  v.  40,  vii.  37,  we  have  TT/OOS  /AC  standing  by 
itself:  so  Matt.  iii.  14,  xi.  28,  xix.  14  (  =  Mark  x. 
14= Luke  xviii.  16),  xxv.  36,  Mark  ix.  19,  Luke  i. 
43?  vi.  47,  xi.  6,  xiv.  26,  Acts  xi.  11,  xxii.  10,  21, 
xxvi.  14  (xxii.  8,  xxiii.  22,  xxiv.  19  T.  R).  Not 
all  of  these  are  emphatic,  but  many  are :  one 
fails  to  trace  any  principle  that  should  tell  us 
whether  to  write  or  pronounce  Trpos  o-e  or  Trpos  <re. 

With  regard  to  reflexive  pronouns,  there  is  less 
doubt  what  the  N.  T.  usage  is,  than  how  far  it  differs 
from  that  of  classical  Greek.  Those  belonging  to  the 
1st  and  2nd  persons,  c/xavrov  and  o-cavrov  (never  con- 
tracted into  cravrov  as  in  Attic  poetry)  are  certainly 
in  use,  but  in  the  sing,  only :  for  their  so-called 
plurals  -rj^v  avT&v  etc.  never  occur  in  the  N.T.  (In 
2  Thess.  i.  4,  read  avrovs  ^/xas :  in  1  Cor.  vii.  35  the 
words  v/xoiv  avraji/  no  doubt  occur,  but  the  sense  is 
the  same  as  with  the  other  order,  emphatic,  not 
reflexive.)  'Eaurov  on  the  other  hand  is  freely  used 
both  in  the  sing,  and  pi.  :  and  its  pi.  is  found  in  the 
various  senses:  (1)  "themselves,"  the  primary  one; 
(2)  "  one  another,"  between  which  and  the  first  it 
is  riot  always  easy  to  draw  a  line ;  (3)  "  ourselves  " 
or  "  yourselves  "—  eavruv  supplying  the  place  of  the  pi. 
to  IjjiavTov  and  (reavTov,  as  well  as  lavrov. 

For  all  these  usages  there  is  plenty  of  classical 
precedent :  and  so  far  the  N.  T.  language  shows  no 
signs  of  degeneracy — it  is  hardly  one,  that  -^on/ 
etc.,  are  disused,  for  eavrtov  is  [much  more 


FORMS  OF  REFLEXIVE  PRONOUNS.    63 

manageable.*  But  in  modern  Greek  eavrov  is  used 
also  in  the  sing,  in  reference  to  all  three  persons,  f 
This  modern  usage,  accordingly,  has  found  its  way 
into  the  later  texts  of  the  N.  T. :  but  the  best  critics 
are  now  agreed,  that  it  has  originally  no  place  there  : 
we  should  read  o-ecwrov,  o-eavroV,  even  in  John  xviii. 
34,  and  in  the  various  places  where  Levit.  xix.  18  is 
quoted. 

In  classical  Attic,  however,  not  only  eenmoi/  etc., 
are  used  for  all  persons,  but  avrov  etc.,  are  so  used  in 
the  sing.  There  also,  however,  more  accurate  textual 
criticism  tends  to  show  that  cavrov,  etc.,  are  not :  we 
learn,  not  that  the  use  of  this  word  for  all  persons  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  decline  of  the  language,J  but  to 
ask  whether,  when  the  sense  is  reflexive,  we  are  to 
suppose  that  the  emphatic  pron.  avros,  used  in  its 
oblique  cases,  was  sufficient  by  itself ,  or  whether  we 
must  suppose  that  the  contracted  form  O.VTOV  for  eavrov 
had  received  an  extension  of  use  which  the  uncon- 
tracted  form  had  not.  Of  evidence  more  trustworthy 
than  the  usage  of  the  comparatively  late  MSS.  that 
mark  the  breathings,  we  have  the  modification  by 
elision  of  a  preceding  word  only  in  ^Esch.  Tlieb.  194, 
Clio.  221  :  in  the  former  place  the  primary  MS.  reads 
avTol  8'  £(£'  avT&Vj  but  in  the  latter  O/UTOS  KCLT  avrov. 

*  See  e.g.,  2  Cor.  xiii.  5  ;  where,  if  one  clause  had  stood  alone, 
aurol  -upas  airrote  Tret/od^ere  might  have  been  more  forcible  ;  but 
to  have  put  v^as  avrovs  thrice,  as  eaurotfs  stands,  would  have 
been  insufferably  cumbrous. 

f  When  it  is  desired  to  express  emphatically  which  person 
is  meant,  it  is  done  by  the  cumbrous  use  of  a  gen.,  TOV  eavrov 
IJLOV,  etc.,  something  like  the  modern  English  *'  myself  "  and 
"  yourself,"  to  which  vulgar  usage  seeks  to  assimilate  the 
really  older  and  more  grammatical  "  him  self." 

J  As  e.g.,  in  Epict.  Diss.  I.  vi.  35  we  ^et  aury  raurei  ere  dei 


64  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Such  decisive  evidence  is  nowhere  forthcoming  in 
the  N.  T.,  in  tiie  passages  (not  very  numerous)  where 
O.VTOV,  -ov  etc.  have  a  directly  reflexive  rather  than 
either  a  personal  or  an  emphatic  sense.  The  smooth 
breathing  is  certain  in  Matt.  iii.  16,  Luke  vi.  3,  4, 
Rev.  ix.  11:  but  the  question  is,  are  reflexive  pronouns 
really  called  for  here!  We  get  (as  in  English)  the 
simple  pers.  pron.  often  used  after  prepositions  where 
logically  we  should  have  the  refl. — e.g.,  Matt.  v.  29, 
30,  vi.  2,  xviii.  16  :  we  even  get  v/uv,  not  eeunrot?,  in 
vi.  19,  20,  where  the  pron.  does  not  depend  on  a 
prep.  :  and  in  Matt.  xxv.  1,  3,  4,  7,  CLVTMV  and  cavruv 
are  interchanged,  no  MSS.  or  editors  adhering  con- 
sistently to  either  form.  In  none  of  the  three  cases 
cited  with  elisions  is  the  reflexive  sense  as  undeniable 
as  in  cd/ros  irepl  avrou  in  John  ix.  21,  (T.R.)  still  less  as 
much  so  as  in  John  ii.  24,  xix.  17,*  Acts  xiv.  17,  Rev. 
viii.  6,  xviii.  7,  and  the  like.  Even  in  places  like  these 
most  recait  critical  editors  think  it  best  always  to 
write  avrov,  etc. :  Westcott  and  Hort  feel  (and  ordi- 
nary readers,  brought  up  on  ordinary  .grammatical 
traditions,  will  feel  with  them)  that  this  sometimes 
makes  a  passage  read  very  harshly,  e.g.,  in  nearly  all 
the  places  last  cited.  They  therefore  admit  avrov 
into  their  text  nearly  twenty  times  :  see  their  Appen- 
dix, ii.,  1.,  pp.  144-5. 

If  there  be  any  practicable  way  of  setting  the 
question  at  rest,  the  most  hopeful  would  be,  first  to 
ascertain  whether  classical  usage  allows  the  simple 
avrov,  -TOV  K.T.A.  to  bear  (in  any  person)  a  reflexive 
sense  :  if  so,  it  is  probable  that  CLVTOV  is  sometimes  so 

*  St.  John,  it  is  to  be  noted,  is  more  careful  to  use  full 
reflexive  forms,  even  after  prepositions,  e.g.,  v.  42,  h  tavrois. 


USE  OF  DEMONSTRATIVE  PRONOUNS.  65 

used  (but  in  the  3rd  person  only)  in  the  N.  T.,  and 
that  lavrov  is  not  there  contracted  into  avrov. 

There  is  hardly  anything  to  be  called  irregular 
in  the  IS".  T.  use  of  demoiistr.  pronouns :  yet  one 
or  two  deviations  from  classical  usage  may  be  noted. 
"OSe  is  all  but  obsolete — it  has  at  any  rate  ceased 
to  be  used  in  its  primary  vivid  sense,  "  this  [per- 
son or  thing]  now  here  present."  See  John  xviii. 
21,  where  OVTOL  bears  this  sense,  Acts  iv.  10,  11, 
where  OVTO<?  is  used  of  two  persons  and  a  thing,  and 
6'Se  to  designate  the  lame  man  would  have  contri- 
buted much  to  clearness;  and  on  the  other  hand 
Luke  x.  39,  the  only  place  where  6'Se  is  used  with 
a  personal  reference  (for  in  xvi.  25  read  o>Se,  a  not 
uncommon  N.  T.  word),  and  where  ravry  would  be 
more  appropriate.  Besides  this  passage,  the  N.  T. 
uses  of  the  word  are  two  only :  once  virtually  in- 
definite, Jas.  iv.  13,  a  sense  hardly  known  to  classical 
Greek,  but  of  which  we  see  the  beginnings  in 
Aristotle ;  *  and  occasionally  in  reference  to  a  speech 
or  letter  about  to  be  recited;  Acts  xxi.  11  (and  xv. 
23,  T.  R.),  and  in  Apoc.  ii.,  iii.,  before  each  of  the 
Epp.  to  the  Seven  Churches.  (In  2  Cor.  xii.  19,  of 
course  we  should  read  read  TO,  Se  as  two  words.) 

OVTOS  and  eKetVos  are  used  much  as  in  earlier  Greek, 
except  in  the  greater  relative  frequency  of  what 
may  be  called  their  epexegetical  use — where  they 

*  Pint.  Symp.  I.  vi.  1  is  quoted  as  a  parallel.  There 
Plutarch  says,  as  a  proof  of  Alexander's  intemperance,  that 
in  his  official  journal  <ruj/exe<TTara  yeypan-rat  /cat  TrXewTuKis,  on 
Tr/vde  TTIV  i)/JL?.paj>  eK  Tov  TTGTOv  tKaSevdev.  But  there  the  words 
introduced  by  OTL  are,  no  doubt,  given  as  a  verbatim  extract 
from  the  journal.  Still,  though  not  a  parallel  to  the  one  in 
St.  James,  this  passage  is  a  sort  of  illustration  of  the  way  that 
that  use  arose. 


66  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

•stand  in  app.  to  a  foregoing  noun,  or  more  frequently 
to  a  participial  or  equivalent  cause,  accentuating  and 
calling  attention  to  the  thing  designated  by  that 
word  or  clause  as  the  subject,  or  less  often  the 
object,  of  the  sentence.  We  have  real  instances 
of  this  construction  in  classical  writers,  beginning 
with  Xen.  Ages.  iv.  4,  ol  TrpotKa  tv  TreTroi/^ore?,  OVTOL 
del  ^Sew?  VTrrjpeTovo'i  ro>  evepyer^,  Id.  Symp.  viii.  33, 
and  we  have  approximations  to  it  still  earlier  : 
but  it  is  never  so  common  in  pure  Greek  as  in  the 
N.  T.  To  show  its  frequency  there,  we  can  only 
refer  to  the  passages  marked  *  *  (or  in  some  oblique 
cases  *  *  *)  in  Bruder's  Concordance,  s.vv.  OVTOS  and 
cKeu/os;  instead  of  enumerating  these,  we  can  only 
call  attention  to  John  xii.  48,  Horn.  vii.  10  (prob.), 
where  the  preceding  word  is  a  subst.  ;  Matt  xiii. 
38,  (John  xvi.  13),  where  it  is  a  subst.  different 
in  gender  and  number  from  the  pron. ;  John  xiv. 
26,  Acts  ii.  22-3,  vii.  35,  where  it  is  a  group  of 
substantives  already  in  app.,  and  relative  clauses; 
Acts  iv.  10,  1  Cor.  vii.  20,  where  it  is  a  subst. 
depending  on  a  prep.,  which  is '  repeated  with  the 
pron. ;  Rom.  ix.  6,  Gal.  iii.  7,  where  there  is  no  ptcp., 
and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  supply  one ;  and  1  Cor. 
viii.  3,  2  Thess.  iii.  14,  James  iii.  2,  where  et  ns  c. 
indie,  takes  the  place  of  the  ptcp.  with  art.  This  last 
is  hardly  distinguishable  from  conditional  sentences  like 
John  ix.  31,  or  relative  ones  like  Matt.  v.  19,  where 
ovros  is  no  longer  epexegetical,  but  stands  naturally 
in  the  apodosis.  Avro  TOVTO  {TOVTO  avro  in  2  Cor.  ii. 
3)  is  peculiar  to  St.  Paul,  except  for  2  Peter  i.  5. 

The  most  marked  irregularity  in  the  use  of  the 
rel.  pron.,  the  use  of  a  personal  or  demonstr.  pron. 


RELATIVES  AND  INTERROG  ATIVES.      67 

in  a  kind  of  remote  apposition  with  it,  has  already 
been  noticed  (p.  59).  But,  besides  this  comparatively 
rare  Hebraism,  there  are  other  signs  in  the  use  of 
the  rel.  of  the  late  stage  of  the  language,  signs  less 
conspicuous,  but  more  significant  of  internal  change. 
In  English,  the  originally  interrogative  pronouns 
"  who  "  and  "  which"  have  encroached  largely  on  the 
use  of  the  primitive  relative  "  that " — which  as  in 
Greek  was  identical  in  form,  though  not  in  accent, 
with  the  demonstr.  pron.  that  became  a  definite  art. 
In  Greek,  we  are  able  to  trace  the  process  by  which 
the  boundary  between  rel.  and  interrog.  sentences 
is  liable  to  be  obliterated.  In  1  Tim.  i.  7  we  have 
the  two  used  side  by  side,  and  see  that  the  use  of 
one  or  other  makes  hardly  any  difference  to  the 
sense :  *  the  sentence  may  be  conceived  as  either 
relative  or  (in  a  wide  sense  of  the  term)  interrogative, 
in  such  phrases  as  "  I  know  who  .  .  .  ,"  "  He  told 
him  who  it  was,"  and  the  like.  Now  in  Greek  there 
existed  a  pron.  combining  in  form  the  rel.  and  the 
interrog.,  and  having  among  its  uses  that  of  serving 
for  cases  like  those  that  lie  on  the  borders  of  the 
two  senses :  but  this  word  carts,  though  not  un- 
common in  the  1ST.  T.  in  other  usages,  is,  curiously 
enough,  never,  or  only  once,  there  employed  in  this. 
But  it,  as  well  as  the  separate  os  and  TI'S,  each  usurp 
some  functions  for  which  one  of  the  others  might 
be  thought  more  proper, 

For  it  appears  on  the  whole  to  be  proved,  that  in 
late  Greek  6Wis,  at  least  its  neut.  cm,  is  occasionally 
though  rarely  used  in  direct  questions  :  and  hence 

*  Even  if  5iaj3e/3cuoOj/rcu  be  a  deliberative  subj.  (see  p.  107  n.), 
the  difference,  though  real,  is  slight. 


68  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

there  is  no  necessity,  hardly  any  probability,  for 
denying  that  it  is  so  used  in  the  N.  T.  No  passage 
indeed  in  which  it  is  so  used  is  quite  free  from 
question  as  to  reading  or  sense.  If  we  read  on  in 
Matt.  vii.  14,  it  seems  certainly  easiest  to  translate 
it  "Because."  In  Mark  ix.  11,  on  the  contrary 
"  Why  .  .  .  ? "  is  the  natural  and  obvious  sense  :  it 
is  only  if  we  have  an  a  priori  scruple  against  ad- 
mitting it,  that  we  shall  reflect  that  it  makes  a  sort 
of  sense  to  translate,  "  They  questioned  Him,  saying, 
1  The  scribes  say  .  .  .  ; ' "  — the  statement  of  fact, 
that  the  scribes  said  so,  suggesting  the  question  "  What 
do  they  mean  by  it  ?  "  or  "  In  what  sense  is  it  true  ? " 
But  when  we  see  that  the  passage  does  not  stand 
alone,  that  in  ver.  28  it  is  even  more  difficult  to 
explain  the  word  as  otherwise  than  interrog.,  that 
moreover  in  1  Paral.  xvii.  6  on  stands  for  "  Why  "  in 
the  LXX.,  or  at  least  can  only  be  taken  otherwise 
by  another  far-fetched  explanation — we  can  hardly 
fail  to  admit  the  use  as  established :  the  only  question 
that  remains  is  as  to  the  limits  of  its  rarity.  In 
Mark  ii.  16  there  is  hardly  any  doubt  that  on  with- 
out n  is  the  true  reading  ;  but  the  categorical  or  the 
interrogative  sentence  will  make  almost  equally  good 
sense.  In  John  viii.  25,  the  question  is  a  very 
difficult  one,  but  it  is  one  of  exegesis  not  of  grammar  : 
as  grammarians  we  can  only  report,  that  the  words 
can  be  taken  as  interrogative,  if  exegetically  that 
view  seems  best. 

Are  we  to  say  that  in  Matt.  xxvi.  50,  the  simple 
o  is  used  interrogatively  ?  If  not,  we  have  to  sup- 
pose a  rather  harsh  ellipsis  :  but  no  such  use  of  o<j 
is  quoted  from  Greek  of  any  period.  'Ozrotos  and 


RELATIVE*  AND  INTERRO&ATIVES.      69 

such  words,  like  ocrrts,  are  regularly  used  in  indirect 
questions ;  even  6's  is  occasionally  found  (and  that 
as  early  as  in  Plat.  Rep.  viii.  p.  559&)  in  a  sentence 
where  oVris  or  even  rt's  might  have  been  expected  : 
but  the  step  from  vague  instances  like  these  to  the 
use  in  a  direct  question  seems  a  hard  one  to  take. 
If  defensible  at  all,  it  must  be  explained  from  the 
influence  of  Latin,  in  which  the  relative  pron.  is 
always  in  form  nearly  akin  to  the  interrogative, 
and  may  itself  in  certain  cases  (of  which  this  is  not 
one)  be  used  interrogatively. 

"Oo-ri?  is,  in  the  N.  T.,  as  a  rule  confined  to  two  of 
its  relative  usages — the  indefinite  one,  almost  exactly 
expressed  by  the  Latin  quicumque  or  the  English 
"  whosoever,"  and  a  less  strictly  definable  one,  cor- 
responding to  the  Latin  qui  with  the  subj.,  and 
capable  of  various  more  or  less  adequate  translations 
in  English  according  to  the  context  or  the  exact 
shade  of  meaning — "  which,"*  "  such  as,"  "  such  that," 
or  "  seeing  that  he.  ..."  Only  in  Acts  ix.  6  (true 
text)  OTI  is  used  in  an  indirect  question,  in  the  wide 
grammatical  sense  of  the  term. 

Of  the  cases  where  rt?  is  used  and  ocms  might 
have  been,  the  most  defensible  cases,  those  where  the 
usurpation  of  the  functions  of  the  rel.  is  least,  are 
those  where  it  follows  e^etv  or  rather  OVK  e^ctv — Matt, 
xv.  32  =  Mark  viii.  1,  2;  cf.  vi.  36.  These  are  not 
more  harsh  than  e.g.,  Mark  ix.  6,  ov  yap  ?;6Vi  TL 
\a\rjcrrj :  and  in  fact  this  phrase  has  unquestionable 
classical  precedents,  Soph.  (E.  C.  317;  Xen.  Hell.  I. 

*  In  the  archaic  use  of  "which,"  according  to  which  it  is 
not  exclusively  neut.,  it  differs  from  "who"  almost  exactly 
as  6'<ms  from  6s. 


70  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

vi.  5,  etc.  The  same  might  be  said  of  Mark  xiii.  11, 
fjiri  TrpoficpLfjivaLTe  TL  XaXtrjarrjT€  :  and  tbis  helps  us  far 
on  the  way  towards  Matt.  x.  19,  where  almost  the 
same  words  are  followed  by  SoOrjcrtTcu  yap  vplv  Iv  e/cetv^ 
rrj  oj/aa  TL  XaX??cn?Te.  Or  this  might  be  compared  with 
Acts  ix.  6,  where  we  might  have  had — the  T.  R. 
actually  has — XaXrj0^o~eTaL  trot  TL  ere  Set  TTOIZLV.  But, 
if  SoOrjo-eTdL  .  .  .  TL  XaXtjo-rjT€  be  admitted,  it  is  Lard 
to  object  to  CTOL/JLOLCTOV  TL  SeiTrv^era)  (Luke  xvii.  8).  A 
further  step  is  taken  towards  a  purely  rel.  sense  in 
Mark  xiv.  36,  ov  TL  eyo>  OeXu,  aXXa  TL  cry,  and  perhaps 
in  Acts  xiii.  25,  TL  (v.  1.  rtVa)  e/xe  vTroi/oetre  eu/ai  OVK  elpl 
eyw.  In  the  latter  place  indeed  it  is  perhaps  better  to 
punctuate  and  translate  as  the  A.  Y. — the  gloss  6  XC. 
after  cyw,  old  enough  to  have  crept  into  the  text, 
shows  that  this  punctuation  was  a  natural  one  :  and 
in  the  other  it  may  be  argued  that  the  use  of  the 
interrog.  suggests  a  modification  of  the  sense,  "  the 
question  is  not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou."  But 
one  cannot  deny  that  the  transition  of  meaning  is 
almost  made;  and  one  can  only  question  how  far 
it  goes  further  than  is  possible  in  pure  Greek  :  see 
Soph.  El.  316,  IcrTopcL  TL  croL  <f)L\ov.  There  are  several 
other  passages  in  Sophocles  where,  as  in  Acts  1.  c., 
many  editors  punctuate  ^o  as  to  require  the  same  sense 
of  Tt?  or  TL  :  but  there  is  no  other  certain  instance 
till  quite  late  writers,  and  on  the  whole  it  seems  best 
to  regard  the  use  as  a  late  development  of  a  tendency 
native  to  pure  Greek. 

A  slighter  extension  of  the  use  of  n's  comes  from 
the  complete  disuse  in  the  N.  T.  of  TroVepog;  for 
which  we  get  the  periphrasis  rt?  CAC  rwv  Bvo  (Matt, 
xxi.  31).  The  adverbial  Trore/oov  occurs  once  (John 


PRONOMINAL  USE  OF  NUMERALS       71 

vii.  17)  in  an  indirect  question — a  survival  paralleled 
in  its  limits  by  that  of  the  etymologically  identical 
"  whether  "  in  English. 

The  various  uses  of  the  indef.  pron.,  the  unaccented 
TIS,  contain  no  deviation  from  classical  usage.  But 
there  are  one  or  two  words,  not  strictly  pronouns, 
which  may  be  noted  here  as  having  unclassical  quasi- 
pronominal  uses.  Els  approaches,  as  in  late  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic,  the  sense  of  a  mere  indef.  art.  in  a 
few  passages  of  the  Gospels  and  Apoc. — Matt.  viii. 
19,  ix.  18  (?),  xxvi.  69 ;  Rev.  viii.  13,  xviii.  21,  xix.  17. 
In  Matt,  xviii.  24,  John  vi.  9  (?)  the  word  no  doubt 
has  a  distinctive  meaning:  but  in  Matt.  xix.  16  = 
Mark  x.  17,  it  seems  to  be  merely  =  ns.  Intermediate 
are  cases  like  Matt.  xvi.  14  =  Mark  vi.  15,  Matt, 
xviii.  28;  or  again  Mark  ix.  17,  Luke  v.  12,  17,  etc., 
where  ets  is  followed  by  a  gen.  or  the  prep.  e£,  and 
thus,  though  there  is  no  emphatic  insistence  on 
singularity  (as  there  is  e.g.,  in  Matt.  x.  29,  xviii.  6, 
10, 12),  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  antithesis  between 
the  individual  and  the  class  out  of  which  he  is 
selected.  If  we  cannot  say  that  the  use  of  ei9  c. 
gen.  in  Matt.  xxvi.  14,  etc.,  is  unclassical,  we  may 
say  it  is  found  more  frequently  and  used  more  freely 
than  in  classical  Greek. 

In  antithetical  sentences  such  as  Matt.  xx.  21, 
xxiv.  40,  xxvii.  48,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the 
use  of  et§  is  unclassical,  for  the  sense  is  not  so  much 
"the  one  .  .  .  the  other"  as  "  one  .  .  .  and  one" 
of  the  two  (or  in  Matt.  xvii.  4,  and  parallels  the  three) 
already  mentioned  or  referred  to.*  But  there  appear 
to  be  no  exact  classical  precedents  for  the  opposition 
*  It  is  otherwise  in  Mark  iv.  8,  20,  if  we  there  read  &>. 


72  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  ets  and  ere/oos  (each  sometimes  with  and  sometimes 
without  the  art.)  which  we  get  in  Matt.  vi.  24  —  Luke 
xvi.  13;  Luke  vii.  41,  xvii.  34,  xviii.  10;  Acts  xxiii. 
6  •  1  Cor.  iv.  6.  This  does  not  however  differ  in 
principle  from  the  classical  ets  aw  .  .  .  6  Se  .  .  ., 
of  which  we  have  something  like  an  instance  in  Gal. 
iv.  24.  More  serious  is  the  deviation  from  Greek 
usage  where  the  word  is  used  reciprocally,  as  1  Thess. 
v.  11,  or  distributively  in  the  phrases  KCL&'  ets  and  its 
modifications  (Mark  xiv.  19,  ps.  John  viii.  9,  Rom. 
xii.  5),  or  ava  cts  cicaerros  (Apoc.  xxi.  21).  The  first 
is  said  to  be  an  Aramaism  :  *a$'  els,  though  con- 
demned as  bad  Greek,  seems  to  be  a  native  Greek 
growth.  But  when  we  compare  ets  Kara  els  of  Mark 
xiv.  19  with  8Yo  Bvo  vi.  7  (Ecclus.  xxxiii.  (xxxvi.)  15  : 
Luke  x.  1  6.va  Bvo  or  ava  oYo  Su'o),*  and  this  with  vi. 
39,  40,  cru/XTrocria  o"u/x,7roVitt  .  .  .  7rpa(rial  Trpavial  Kara 
c/carov  KOL  Kara  Trevny/coi/ra,  we  seem  to  feel  that  there 
is  a  foreign  as  well  as  a  native  element  in  the  change 
of  idiom. 

Another  word,  not  commonly  called  a  pronoun  but 
used  as  equivalent  to  one,  is  tStos :  see  Matt.  xxii.  5, 
1  Cor.  vii.  2,  for  cases  where  it  is  coupled  with  a 
pronominal  gen.  with  apparently  no  distinction  in 
sense. 

Lastly  we  may  mention  under  this  head  the 
Hebraistic  use  of  ov  (or  more  rarely  UTJ)  .  .  .  TTOS  as 

*  While  speaking  of  these  Hebraistic  uses  of  numerals,  we 
may  mention  in  passing  the  frequent  fjiia  vafi&aTuv.  That 
here,  pla  is  "used  for"  an  ordinal  may  be  admitted,  in  view 
of  the  TrpuTf]  <ra(3pa.Tov  of  [Mark]  xvi.  9  :  at  least  that  shows 
that  in  Greek,  as  in  English,  an  ordinal  would  be  the  natural 
way  of  expressing  what  is  meant.  Note  also  Psalm  xxiii. 
(xxiv.),  title,  TTJS  fjuas  aappdrov,  xlvii.  (xlviii.)  devrtpq.  aafifSATov, 
xciij.  (xciv.)  Terpddi  o-a/S^drou— which  is  less  remote  from  pla. 


AND  OF  OTHER  ADJECTIVES. 


equivalent  to  ovSei's  :  see  Matt.  xxiv.  22  =  Mark  xiii. 
20,  Luke  i.  37,  Acts  x.  14,  Horn.  iii.  20  =  Gal.  ii.  16, 
1  Cor.  i.  29,  Rev.  ix.  4.  Distinct  from  this  is,  not 
only  the  use  of  ov  Tra?  without  an  intervening  word, 
and  meaning,  "not  all,"  of  Matt.  vii.  21,  1  Cor.  xv. 
39,  but  that  of  TTUS  ov  rather  frequent  in  St.  John, 
and  perhaps  giving  a  sense  slightly  modified  from 
ouSei's.  See  John  iii.  (15  ?)  16,  vi.  39,  xii.  46,  1  Ep. 
ii.  21,  iii.  15,  Eph.  iv.  29,  v.  5,  besides  the  v.  1.  in 
the  quotation  in  Rom.  ix.  33. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

CHARACTERISTICS    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT    GREEK    IN    THE 
SYNTACTICAL    USE    OF    NOUNS. 

(a)  Substantive. 

IN  discussing  the  use  made  in  the  1ST.  T.  of  the 
Greek  cases  of  the  noun,  we  must  distinguish 
between  such  peculiarities  of  usage  as  are  purely 
grammatical,  and  those  where  there  is  nothing  at  all 
peculiar  in  the  grammar,  but  where  ordinary  con- 
structions are  used  to  express,  whether  more  or  less 
adequately,  peculiarly  or  distinctively  biblical  thoughts. 
Thus  it  is  a  question  for  the  commentator  not  for  the 
grammarian,  what  is  St.  Paul's  exact  meaning  when 
he  speaks  of  "  dying  to  sin,"  "  living  to  God  "  (Rom. 
vi.  10,  etc.),  or  again  by  a  person  being,  or  a  fact 
subsisting,  "in  Christ "  (e.g.,  2  Cor.  v.  17;  Gal.  iii.  28, 
v.  6).  Doubtless,  the  way  to  investigate  points  like 
these  is  much  the  same  as  that  for  studying  obscure 
points  of  grammar  :  we  must  examine  and  compare 
the  various  passages  where  the  phrases  occur ;  wTe 
must  illustrate  them,  as  far  as  possible,  by  passages 
similar  in  context  and  in  general  purport,  but  differ- 
ing in  form  of  expression;  and  must  seek  to  trace 
what  difference,  if  any,  that  difference  of  form  makes 
in  the  sense.  But  when  our  study  is  complete  we 
shall  know  more,  not  of  the  force  of  the  dative  case 


GRAMMAR  DISTINCT  FROM  EXEGESIS.  75 

or  of  the  prep,  ev  as  used  in  N.  T.  Greek,  but  of 
St.  Paul's  theological  doctrines.  It  is  different,  when 
expositors  ask  whether  OKOVCW  <£(m/7}s  in  Acts  ix.  7 
differs  at  all  in  sense  from  <^>wv?;v  d/covcu/  in  xxii.  9  ; 
this  is  a  grammatical  question  to  be  answered  on 
grammatical  grounds  : — though  the  best  answer  will 
here  also  be  arrived  at  by  examination  of  usage,  not 
by  deduction  from  the  supposed  nature  of  the  gen. 
or  ace.  Still  more  plainly,  the  grammarian  has  a 
right  to  speak  where  the  writer  himself  calls  attention 
to  a  constr.  or  to  a  particle :  e.g.,  in  passages  like 
Rom.  xi.  36,  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  Eph.  iv.  6,  we  have  to 
consider  the  grammatical  question  of  the  force  of  the 
prepositions,  before  we  can  settle  the  exegetical  or 
theological  question,  what  ets  avrov  or  ev  iracnv  can 
mean  in  these  particular  contexts  : 

The  Greek  language  has  even  to  the  present  day 
retained  the  primitive  case-inflexions  of  the  noun  to 
an  extent  very  unusual  among  modern  languages :  * 
though  the  dat.  Las  become  almost  obsolete.  But  it 
has  shared  the  tendency  common  to  all  modern 
languages  to  become  more  analytical — to  supplement 
or  supersede  inflexion  by  the  use  of  particles :  and 
we  see  this  tendency  to  some  extent  at  work  in  the 
N.  T.  Any  tendency  that  there  was  in  this  direction 

*  How  rapidly  such  forms  may  disappear  can  be  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  Celtic  languages.  As  known  from  inscriptions 
down  to  at  least  the  first  century  A.D.,  they  have  a  full 
declension  of  case-endings,  closely  akin  to  the  Latin  and  in 
some  respects  more  primitive  :  but  in  the  oldest  Irish  and 
Welsh  literature  (of  perhaps  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries 
respectively)  their  terminations  have  all  disappeared,  except 
that  in  Irish  there  are  traces  of  the  dat.  pi.  The  non-specialist 
can  trace  the  disintegration  in  such  a  book  as  Prof.  Khys' 
Celtic  Britain. 


76  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

in  the  popular  Greek  language  of  the  age  would  be 
sure  to  be  reinforced  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  by  Mie 
imitation  of  Semitic  idioms,  where  case-inflexion 
hardly  exists,  and  where  prepositions  (or  at  least 
inseparable  particles  which  may  be  fairly  so  called) 
are  used  very  extensively.  But  apart  from  this 
tendency  (for  instances  of  which  see  pp.  137  sqq.\ 
there  is  not  very  much  that  is  peculiar  in  the  N.  T. 
use  of  the  cases  themselves.  We  have,  however,  two 
or  three  irregular  uses  of  the  nom.  With  the  art., 
it  stands  very  often  for  the  voc.  ;  *  as  Matt.  xi.  26, 
where  6  Ilcmyp  is  exactly  parallel  to  Hdrtp  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse  ;  Mark  xiv.  36,  Rom.  viii.  15,  Gal.  iv.  6 
— all  which  show  that  6  HOLTYJP  was  the  recognised, 
quasi-liturgical  "  interpret  a  tionj>  for  the  yXwo-o-a  *A/3/3a 
of  inspired  prayer.  Perhaps  we  may  illustrate  this 
usage  by  the  way  that  the  3rd  person  is  used  in 
German  as  more  contemptuous,  and  in  Italian  as  more 
respectful  than  the  2nd  :  you  talk  to  equals,  but  of 
superiors  and  at  inferiors.  Not  that  the  use  or  omis- 
sion of  the  art.  conesponds  with  the  tone  being 
reverential  or  objurgatory.  We  get  17  Treu?  in  Luke 
viii.  54  (cf.  Mark  v.  4),  TO  jjuKpov  TTOL^VLOV  in  xii.  32, 
where  the  tone,  though  kindly,  is  condescending  :  the 
nearest  classical  parallel  is  the  use  of  6  Trats  in  Ar. 
Ran.  40,  which  seems  to  have  been  only  colloquial, 
and  apparently  always  curt.  Somewhat  different 

*  It  is  a  mistake  to  note  as  unclassical  the  use  of  the  voc. 
without  &  at  the  beginning  of  speeches,  as  with  the  phrase 
cLfdpes  d5eA0oi  in  Acts  i.  16  ct  passim,  or  "Ai>8pes  'Ad-rjvaloi, 
'E06rtof,  in  the  more  classicalibing  passages,  xvii.  22,  xix.  35. 
This  is  a  transgi-ession  of  the  usage,  not  of  classical  orators 
but  of  late  rhetoricians  and  grammarians :  according  to  the 
best  MS.  evidence,  Demosthenes  habitually,  at  least  in  some 
speeches,  said  tivdpes  'AOijvatoi  without  tD. 


EXCEPTIONAL  USER  OF  NOMINATIVE.  77 

is  the  use  of  the  iiom.  without  the  art.  in  Luke  xii. 
20, '1  Cor.  xv.  36  :  there  one  may  say  we  have  simply 
cases  of  non-use  of  the  distinctive  vocative  inflexion. 
Moreover,  though  a</>p(oi/  appears  to  be  decidedly  the 
true  text  in  both  passages,  we  must  remember  that 
confusion  between  o  and  o>  was  one  of  the  earliest 
forms  of  error  or  irregularity  to  appear  in  Greek 
spelling,  so  that  even  the  best  MSS.  are  less  absolutely 
to  be  trusted  on  this  point  than  on  others. 

A  more  serious  irregularity  is  found  in  the  usage  of 
the  Apoc,,  where,  of  two  nouns  in  appos.,  the  second 
is  regularly  put  in  the  nom.,  whatever  be  the  case  of 
the  former — i.  5,  ii.  20,  etc.  In  such  a  crude  form 
as  this,  the  usage  is  confined  to  this  one  book,  and 
might  be  reckoned  rather  as  one  of  its  peculiar 
anomalies  of  language  than  as  representing  a  tendency 
of  Hellenistic  Greek  generally.  But  when  we  look 
at  Mark  xii.  38-40  in  the  light  of  these  passages,  it 
is  hard  to  avoid  thinking  that  we  have  a  parallel 
case :  the  force  of  the  sentence  is  weakened,  if  we 
put  a  pause  before  ot  /careo-^ovre?,  or  do  away  with  that 
after  Trpoo-ev^o/xevot :  see  also  Luke  xx.  27,  and  even 
Acts  x.  37.  2  Cor.  xi.  28 ;  James  hi.  8  are  not  parallel 
cases — there  is  there  a  real  break  in  the  sentence  :  but 
in  Phil.  iii.  18,  19  it  is  hard  to  make  ot  ra  cTrtyeia 
<£/oovowres  stand  as  quite  regular  :  the  art.,  if  nothing 
else,  prevents  our  connecting  it  closely  with  -jrepiTraTov- 
<TW.  Yet  even  this  may  be  considered  rather  an 
inadvertence  than  an  unclassical  idiom  :  after  the 
two  clauses  beginning  with  wi/,  the  gen.  is  properly 
dropped,  but  the  author  forgets  that  he  ought  strictly 
to  have  reverted  to  the  ace.  not  the  nom. — that  is, 
when  he  had  once  introduced  the  ace.  TOUS  Ix/Dpovs, 


78  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

which  comes  in  by  a  somewhat  irregular  attraction, 
with  which  cf.  Philem.  10,  1  John  ii.  25.  Acts  iv.  5, 
(true  text)  is  in  some  sort  parallel  to  Phil.  1.  c. 
though  it  is  a  case,  not  of  apposition,  but  of  nouns 
co-ordinated  by  a  conj.  when  in  different  cases.  The 
last  irregular  use  of  the  nom.  that  we  have  to  mention 
is  in  certain  notes  of  time  in  two  or  three  places  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels — Matt.  xv.  32  —  Mark  viii.  2 
(true  text),  Luke  ix.  28.  In  the  last  place,  the  only 
irregularity  is  the  sing,  eyevero,  which  prob.  really 
is  not  a  solecistic  eyeVero  rj^pai,  but  a  case  of  the 
Lucan  eyevero  Se  .  .  .  /cat  .  .  .  Probably  in  all 
three  cases  there  is  a  sort  of  break  or  parenthesis : 
"  They  continue  with  me — it  is  now  three  days  :  " 
"  it  came  to  pass — it  was  eight  days  after."  Buttmann 
compares  the  parenthetic  use  of  ...  ovo/xa  avrco  in 
John  i.  6,  iii.  1.  We  may  also  note  the  use  of  ay  a 
without  a  subj.  in  Luke  xxiv.  21,  as  a  proof  that 
notes  of  time  were  especially  liable  to  lose  sight  of 
strict  grammatical  constr. 

The  N.  T.  use  of  the  ace.  and  dat.  may  be  regarded 
as  identical  in  principle  with -the  classical,  though  we 
note  a  few  variations  in  detail.  In  1  Cor.  vii.  31  we 
get  xprjo-Oai  c.  ace.  :  this  is  unique,  and  is  perhaps 
made  somewhat  easier  by  the  fact  that  KaTaxprjcrOai 
is  so  used, — only,  it  is  true,  by  later  writers  than  St. 
Paul,  so  far  as  we  now  know ;  but  it  may  have  been 
usual,  at  least  colloquially,  in  his  time.  The  use  of 
the  ace.  in  Rom.  viii.  3,  2  Cor.  vi.  13  is  really  an 
extension  of  the  cognate  ace.  and  may  be  called 
idiomatic  Greek,  if  not  quite  regular  :  see  also  Acts 
xxvi.  3.  Acts  xiii.  32  is  also  an  instance  of  the 
cognate  ace.  in  a  wide  sense.  We  cannot  say  that 


VERBS  OF  CHRISTIAN  SENSE.  79 

there  evayyeAt£eo-0tti  has  a  double  ace.,  for  the  good 
news  announced  is,  not  "  the  promise  "  but  "  that 
God  hath  fulfilled  the  promise."  Trjv  lirayy.  stands 
first  for  emphasis,  and  ravrrjv  occupies  the  place 
in  the  constr.  belonging  to  it.  (Acts  x.  36  would 
be  just  a  similar  case,  if  we  retain  6V  after  rov 
Aoyoy).  It  is  certain  that  eua,yyeAi£eo-$at,  which  in 
the  N.  T.  receives  such  a  novel  force  as  to  be  felt 
like  a  new  word,  is  used  with  an  ace.  both  of  the 
person  addressed  (Luke  iii.  18,  Acts  viii.  25,  40, 
xiii.  32,  xiv.  15,  21,  xvi.  10,  Gal.  i.  9,  1  Peter  i.  12), 
and  of  the  message  (Luke  viii.  1,  Acts  v.  42,  viii. 
4,  12,  x.  36,  xi.  20,  xv.  35,  Eom.  x.  15  (fr.  LXX.), 
Gal.  i.  23) :  but  where  the  two  are  combined,  the 
person  is  always  expressed  by  the  dat.  (Luke  i.  19, 
ii.  10,  iv.  43,  Acts  viii.  35,  xvii.  18,  1  Cor.  xv.  1, 
2  Cor.  xi.  7,  Eph.  ii.  17,  1  Thess.  iii.  6),  which  is 
found  aLso,  without  the  ace.  of  the  message,  in  Luke 
iv.  18  (from  LXX.),  Rom.  i.  15,  Gal.  i.  8,  iv.  13, 
and  which  was  the  classical  constr.  or  by  ev  c.  dat. 
(Gal.  i.  16,  Eph.  iii.  8).  The  act.  form  evayyeXt^o)  is 
confined  to  the  Apoc.  (x.  7,  where  it  has,  in  the  true 
text,  an  ace.  of  the  person,  and  xiv.  6,  where  it  is 
constructed  with  eVt  c.  ace.) :  but  the  pass,  use  of 
€vayy€A.t£e(7$ai  implies  it — the  subject  of  the  pass,  verb 
being  the  person  addressed  in  Matt.  xi.  5  =  Luke  viii. 
22,  Heb.  iv.  2,  6,  but  the  message  in  Luke  xvi.  16, 
Gal.  i.  11,  1  Peter  i.  25  ;  while  in  1  Peter  iv.  6  it  is 
impersonal.  Somewhat  similar  is  the  case  of  /^a^r/revo) : 
the  verb  is  quite  classical,  but  always  intr.  ;  but 
in  the  N.  T.,  taking  a  new  evangelical  sense,  it  comes 
to  be  used  (even  in  Matt,  xxvii  57,  true  text)  tran- 
sitively as  a  causative,  or  in  the  passive. 


80  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


u/  has  usually  its  classical  coiistr.,  with 
either  or  both  of  the  two  accusatives,  of  the  person 
and  of  the  thing.  Once  in  the  Apoc.  only  (ii.  14)  it 
has  the  coiistr.  which  a  priori  would  seem  natural, 
with  a  dat.  of  the  person.  In  Acts  xxvii.  22  it  seems 
hardly  right  to  say  that  Trapaweu/  takes  an  ace.  —  fytas 
is  rather  subject  to  ev6vp.clv  than  object  to  Trapatvto  : 
still  no  doubt  in  classical  Greek  the  dat.  is  usual,  even 
when  an  inf.  follows. 

n/oocrKwetv  in  classical  Greek  is  always  treated 
as  a  transitive  verb,  and  followed  as  such  by  the 
ace.  ;  but  in  later  Greek  it  gets  the  constr.  c.  dat. 
which  its  sense  and  form  make  a  priori  natural. 
In  the  N.  T.  the  dat.  is  decidedly  the  commoner, 
though  of  course  the  reading  often  varies  between 
the  two.  In  John  iv.  23  we  have  both  constructions, 
with  hardly  any  doubt  as  to  the  text,  and  with 
apparently  no  difference  of  sense  :  so  Rev.  xiii. 
4,*  8.  In  Acts  vii.  21,  xiii.  22,  47  we  have  cts  c. 
ace.  where  in  pure  Greek  we  should  have  a  simple 
proleptic  or  predicative  ace.  The  constr.  is  just  cor- 
relative to  that  of  eu/ai  or  yti  eo-$«.i  eis  (see  p.  143), 
the  two  being  actually  coupled  in  the  passage  last 
cited  :  we  notice  that  all  the  instances  are  founded 
on  O.  T.  passages,  if  not  actual  quotations.  Similar 
in  principle  is  Aoyt£eo-$ai  ets  in  Rom.  ii.  26,  ix.  8  :  cts 
ovOtv  Xoyio-Orjvai  in  Acts  xix.  27  is  meant  to  be, 
and  probably  is,  within  the  limits  of  classical  usage. 
In  Matt,  xxvii.  10,  4'oWav  ets  must  be  understood  as 
similar  to  fiaXtiv  et<?  in  ver.  6  :  it  is  impossible  to 
get  out  of  the  prep,  the  sense  of  giving  one  thing 

*  Probably  we  have  not  the  two  cases  combined  in  1he 
former  verse,  taken  alone. 


NEW  TESTAMENT   USES  OF  DATIVE.     81 

for  another,  in  the  sense  of  exchange  ;  but  the  Evan- 
gelist may  have  taken  it  of  putting  the  money  into 
the  field,  as  we  speak  of  investing  in  land,  or  sinking 
money  in  it. 

There  is  hardly  a  sign  in  the  !N".  T.  of  any  ten- 
dency to  disuse  of  the  dative  case  :  on  the  contraiy, 
the  simple  dat.  is  used  with  more  freedom  and  laxity, 
if  not  more  frequently,  than  in  classical  Greek. 
Besides  the  Hebraistic  ao-retos  rw  ©ea>  of  Acts  vii.  20, 
we  get  it  used  very  vaguely,  where  one  can  only 
gloss  it  "  in  relation  to  " — e.g.  Rom.  vi.  20,  eXev^epot  rrj 
(Wcuocrw?/,  which  would  hardly  have  been  intelligible 
but  for  €&ov\.o)QrjT€.  rrj  SIK.  in  ver.  18  :  2  Cor.  x.  4 
Swara  ru>  ®eo)  (different,  of  course,  in  sense  even  more 
than  in  constr.  from  Matt.  xix.  26  and  para^els)  : 
James  ii.  5  (true  text)  TOVS  TTTW^OVS  TU>  KOCT/XW.  Unclei 
this  head  fall  also  sentences  su^h  as  Rom.  vi.  10, 
already  referred  to  as  needing  theological  rather  than 
grammatical  study  for  their  adequate  exposition. 

It  is  questionable  how  far  the  dat.  acquires,  in 
N.  T.  Greek,  the  sense  of  motion  to  a  place,  which 
it  rarely  has  in  classical,  though  the  modern  use  of 
the  prep,  to  obscures  the  distinction.  It  seems  need- 
less to  avoid  so  understanding  ep^o/W  crot  in  Rev.  ii. 
5,  16,  for  however  incorrect  the  use  may  be,  such  an 
error  would  be  more  in  the  manner  of  that  book  than 
a  refinement  like  the  ethical  dat.  or  dativus  incom- 
modi.  And  if  this  be  taken  locally,  it  helps  us  with 
the  still  harder  dat.  TCUS  Tr/Doo-ct^ais  in  viii.  4 ;  which 
indeed  could  hardly  have  been  written,  but  for  the 
wa  Sojo-et  rats  Trp.  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  when 
coupled  with  that  is  intelligible  in  Hellenistic  Greek 
as  in  English :  "  there  was  given-  him  much  incense, 

6 


82  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

that  he  should  put  it  to  the  prayers  .  .  .  and  the 
smoke  of  the  incense  went  up  to  the  prayers."  But 
in  Acts  ii.  33,  v.  31  it  seems  better  to  take  TTJ  Se£ia  as 
instrumental,  or  if  it  has  any  local  sense,  to  render 
it  rather  "  exalted  at  the  right  hand  "  than  "  to."  In 
Acts  xxi.  16,  the  first  dat.  that  occurs  is  the  quite 
regular  one  o>  after  -rapd,  and  the  others  owe  their 
case  to  the  attraction  of  this :  the  constr.  is  not 
ayoi/res  MVatrcovt,  whether  the  sense  be  ayoi/rcs  Mvaorcora 
or  ayovT€9  [^as]  Trapa  Mvacrwra.  In  Mark  xiv.  53,  if 
crvvcpxovTai  cd/ro)  be  right,  it  can  be  translated  "  the 
chief  priests  .  .  .  come  [into  the  judgment  hall]  with 
him  "  [Caiaphas]  :  but  if  the  pron.  be  retained,  it  no 
doubt  would  be  more  natural  to  understand  it  "  come 
together  to  him  "  [i.e.  prob.  to  Jesus].  The  reading 
here  however  is  too  uncertain  to  prove  anything  : 
and  in  John  xi.  33  TOVS  (rvvcXOovras  avrfj  is  certainly 
"  that  came  with  her  " — see  ver.  31. 

One  can  hardly  say  whether,  in  Mark  x.  33 
(  =  Matt.  xx.  18  si  vera  £.),  KaraKpivov&iv  CLVTOV  $avara), 
the  dat.  is  one  of  destination  (and  so  comparable  to 
the  more  or  less  local  datives  we  have  been  consider- 
ing), or  is,  in  a  wide  sense,  instrumental.  The  former 
view  is  supported,  not  only  by  the  fact  that  modern 
languages  have  an  analogous  idiom,  but  by  the  v.  1. 
ets  Odvarov  of  Cod.  X  in  Matt.,  adopted  by  Tischendorf 
(in  Mark,  Cod.  D  has  -rov) :  the  other,  by  i/o?<£o> 
Oavdrov  Kara/ce/c/oi/xe'i/oi/  in  Eur.  Andr.  496.  The  phrase 
Ka,TaSiKa£ecr0ai  $ai/aTa>,  implying  a  constr.  of  KaraSt/ca£ etv 
like  that  of '/cara/cptVctv  here,  is  late  but  not  biblical :  and 
the  supposed  phrase  is  in  fact  hardly  found  in  the  act. 

Still  more  peculiar  is  the  dat.  rot?  Soy/xacru'  in  Col. 
ii;  14.  The  constr.  must  be  virtually  the  same  as 


USES  OF  DATIVE  AND  GENITIVE.      83 

that  of  ei/  Sdy/xao-ti/  in  the  parallel  passage,  Eph.  ii. 
1 5 ;  and  grammatically  the  easiest  course  is  to  take 
the  dat.,  with  or  without  cv,  as  instrumental,  in  con- 
nexion with  KaTapyrjo-as  and  e£aAei'i/fas  respectively  in 
the  two  places.  But  here  again  higher  exegetical 
considerations  come  in :  and  the  A.  V.  is  probably 
substantially  right. 

We  must  notice  one  distinct  use  of  the  dat.  of 
manner — when  the  dat.  of  an  abstract  verbal  noun 
is  used  as  a  representative  of  the  Hebrew  "  absolute 
infinitive,"  and  joined  with  a  finite  part  of  the 
cognate  verb,  to  emphasise  the  statement  of  its 
action.  So  Luke  xxii.  15  eVttftyxta  CTrc^u/ftpra,  John 

iii.  29  x«pa  xa*P€l>  ^cts  (1V-  1>jr,  T-  R-)>  v-  28>  xxiii-  14, 
James  v.  17  ;  besides  Matt.  xiii.  14  etc.,  xv.  4,  which 
are  quotations  (in  the  latter,  note  that  the  subst.  and 
verb  are  not  formally  cognate  :  in  the  LXX.  of  Ex. 
xxi.  15  OavaTu  9ava.Tov(T0u>,  they  are).  Commoner  in 
the  LXX.,  but  rarer  in  the  N.  T.,  is  an  equivalent 
use  of  the  ptcp.  :  see  p.  130. 

The  gen.  in  its  commonest  use,  where  it  is  depen- 
dent on  another  subst.,  is  in  the  N.  T.  almost  always 
put  after  the  governing  word — not  before  it,  as 
generally  in  Latin  and  always  (if  the  inflected  gen. 
is  used  at  all)  in  English.  We  have  it  much  less 
often  than  in  Attic  placed  like  an  attribute  between 
the  art.  and  the  governing  subst.  Thus  we  may 
think  that,  in  a  sentence  like  Matt.  ix.  14=  Mark  ii. 
18= Luke  v.  33,  a  classical  writer  would  have  pre- 
ferred ot  [TOV]  *  ludvov  juaO^rai  :  certainly  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  say  of  such  a  writer,  as  we  may  of 
St.  Paul,  that  OLTTO  KY  I1NC  in  2  Cor.  iii.  18  cannot 
mean  "  from  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  Or  to  take  a  less 


84  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

imaginary  case :  where  St.  Luke  is  writing  Hellenis- 
tically  (Ev.  i.  10)  he  has  -rrav  TO  irXfjOos  ryv  TOV  Xaov 
(T.  E.  TOV  Xaov  yv) :  so  ii.  13,  v.  6,  vi.  17,  viii.  37,  xix. 
37,  xxiii.  27,  Acts  iv.  32,  v.  14,  16,  vi  2.  But  when 
we  come  to  more  Hellenic  passages,  we  have  'EAA/^i/on/ 
TTO\V  TrXfjOos  in  xiv.  1,  xvii.  4 — cf.  xxviii.  3;  yet  the 
other  order  as  often — xiv.  4,  xxi.  36,  xxv.  24.*  The 
fact  is,  for  the  governed  word  to  precede  the  governing 
is  the  common  order  in  Greek,  but  is  liable  to  be 
modified  by  the  use  of  the  art.  and  other  considerations : 
while  in  the  Hebrew  (what  we  should  consider)  the 
governing  word  always  stands  first. 

Of  other  irregularities  in  the  use  of  this  case,  the 
chief  is  the  very  wide  extension  of  the  independent 
use  of  what  may  be  called  a  partitive  gen.,  or  a  gen. 
with  or  without  a  prep.,  depending  on  rive'?  or  some 
case  of  it,  which  is  not  expressed.  We  get  such  a 
gen.  standing  as  subject  to  a  verb  often — Acts  xxi.  16, 
etc.,  and  for  this  there  is  classical  precedent,  though  not 
with  such  frequency :  but  hardly  for  its  carrying  a 
ptcp.  as  well  as  a  verb,  as  it  does  in  John  vii.  40, 
where  it  is  subject,  and  in  2  John  4,  where  it  is  object. 

An  irregularity  in  that  of  the  gen.  abs.  has  already 
been  noted  (p.  57-8).  Of  other  uses  of  the  gen.  the  most 
distinctively  Hellenistic  is  the  quasi-adjectival  gen.  of 
quality.  Unmistakable  instances  of  this  are  found 
in  Luke  xvi.  8,  9,  xviii.  6,  Eev.  xiii.  3,  and  probably 
James  i.  25  :  nor  need  we  refuse  to  see  the  influence 
of  this  Hebraistic  idiom  in  theological  phrases,  such 

*  Where  two  genitives  depend,  not  one  upon  another,  but  in 
different  relations  on  the  same  word,  one  is  put  before  and  the 
other  after  it.  So  (Acts  v.  32,  T.  E.,)  2  Cor.  v.  1,  Phil.  ii.  30, 
1  Thess.  i.  3.  This  principle  perhaps  explains  what  seems 
the  strangeness  of  order  in  Rev.  vii.  1 7,  farjs  iryyas  vddrwi*. 


HELLENISTIC    USES  OF  GENITIVE.     85 


as  dvacrracris  £anJ9,  Kp«T€<i>9,  John  v.  29,  8iKaiooo-t9  £00779, 
Rom.  v.  18,  o-w/xa  TT}?  a/x,u/oTias,  ib.  vi.  6,  and  even  e/c  TOI) 
croj/xaros  rot»  Oavdrov  rovrov,  ib.  vii.  24,  though  TOT/TOV  is 
probably  rather  to  be  taken  with  Oavdrov  than  crw/xaros. 
But  in  these  last  passages,  though  the  gen.  is  one  of 
quality,  it  would  be  wrong  or  impossible  to  translate 
it  by  an  adj.  :  and  still  more  in  such  places  as  Col.  i. 
13,  1  Thess.  i.  3,  2  Thess.  i.  7,  Heb.  i.  3,  2  Peter  ii. 
10  —  in  the  last,  indeed,  /uacr/u,oi)  seems  to  depend  quite 
regularly  on  l-n-tOvfjita.     Not  always  clearly  distinguish- 
able from  this  is  the  use  of  the  gen.  for  epexegesis  — 
sometimes  called  the  gen.  of  apposition  :  of  which  we 
have  instances  in  Rom.  iv.  11  (best  text,  but  we  have 
apposition  as  a  v.  £.),  1  Cor.  v.  5  :  so  no  doubt  John 
ii.  21,  though  here  as  the  governing  word  is  also  a  gen., 
it  is  just  possible  to  take  it  as  in  apposition.     This  is 
hardly  to  be  treated  as  a  Hebraism,  but  it  is  carried 
further  in  Hellenistic  than  in  pure  Greek  :  there  it 
would  hardly  go  beyond  cases  like  2  Peter  ii.  6.     Its 
relation  to  the  gen.  of  quality  may  be  illustrated  by 
Luke  xxii.  1,  where  we  cannot  say  that  the  meaning 
is  not  "the  feast  characterised  by  unleavened  bread"  : 
but  that  the  classical  constr.  by  apposition  (which  we 
get  in  John  vii.  2)  did  pass  in  Hellenistic  Greek  into 
phrases  like  this  is  shown  in  2  Mace.  vi.  7,  TT}S  AiovucriW 
eop-n}?,  where  the  art.  and  the  order  exclude  apposition. 
But  this  constr.  also  is  sometimes  pressed  beyond  its 
legitimate  limits.     Here  we  have  points  where  the 
instinct  of  the  cultivated  man  will  be  sounder  than  that 
of  the  mere  "  scholar."     Biblical  Greek,  like  biblical 
and  even  modern    English,  has  been  brought  under 
Hebraising  influence  through  translations  of  the  0.  T.  : 
but  as  a  rule  each  language  has  only  assimilated  as 


86  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

much  Hebraism  as  was  in  harmony  with  its  own 
nature  :  it  is  only  in  such  writings  as  the  Apocalypse, 
and  parts  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  that  we  get  anything 
more.  In  1  Cor.  xiv.  33,  Heb.  x.  39,  we  get  what 
may  be  called  genitives  of  quality,  but  these  would  be 
quite  intelligible — would  even  appear  idiomatic — to  a 
reader  accustomed  to  classical  Greek.  But  in  1  Thess. 
v.  5  we  get  genitives  just  like  these  coupled  with  the 
utterly  Hebraistic  TCKVO,  <£orros,  re/<i/a  Ty/xepas — illus- 
trating how  easily  the  passage  from  the  Hebraising 
use  of  the  gen.  to  the  Hellenic  is  effected. 

As  we  have  already  noted  of  the  dat.,  so  the  gen. 
is  used  very  freely  to  express  a  wide  range  of  relations, 
wider  perhaps  than  would  be  the  case  in  classical 
Greek,  and  certainly  hard  to  bring  within  definite 
grammatical  formulae.  The  gen.  is,  in  fact,  the  case 
by  which  the  most  general  relation  can  be  expressed 
between  one  noun  and  another,  as  the  dat.  expresses 
the  most  general  relation  between  a  noun  and  the 
action  of  a  verb :  and  we  meet  with  the  gen.,  as 
with  the  dat.,  in  many  sentences  where  the  force  of 
the  constr.  is  important,  but  must  be  learnt  not  from 
considerations  of  pure  grammar,  but  of  wider  and 
higher  exegesis.  E.g.  it  is  easy  to  say  that  in  John 
v.  42  TOV  ©eo9  is  an  objective  gen.,  in  Rom.  viii.  39  a 
subjective ;  while  in  Rom.  v.  5  we  may  ask  which  it  is 
of  the  two,  and  give  a  definite  answer  one  way  or  other. 
But  it  is  less  easy  to  put  a  grammatical  ticket  on  such 
a  phrase  as  e^ere  TTLO-TLV  ®eoi)  in  Mark  xi.  22,  or  iv 
TTto-ret .  .  .  .  Trj  TOV  Yto9  TOV  ®eo9,  or  whatever  be  the 
true  reading  in  Gal.  ii.  20.  Similarly  phrases  like 
oiKCiioo-vvr)  ®tov  (Rom.  i.  17,  etc.),  Si/c.  TuVrecos  (iv.  13, 
etc.),  vTraKorjv  TTtWeo)?  (i.  5),  TTIOTIS  dA^eias  (2  Thess.  ii. 


CASES   USED    WITH   VERBS  OF  SENSE.     8? 

13),  jj  eiprjvrj  TOV  ©eov  (Phil.  iv.  7,  cf.  Col.  iii.  15,  where 
however  the  true  reading  is  TOV  X/oto-rov),  have  mean- 
ings to  be  settled  by  the  study  of  things  not  of  words : 
grammatically,  we  can  only  group  them  with  such 
genitives  of  vague  relation  as  we  have  in  Matt.  i.  11, 
12,  x.  5,  Luke  vi.  12  (where  the  relation,  though  sacred, 
is  definite  and  obvious),  Rom.  xv.  8  (rwi/  Tro/repon/),  etc. 
Perhaps  of  usages  that  come  under  strictly  gram- 
matical rule,  but  as  to  which  the  rules  are  not  quite 
the  same  as  in  classical  Greek,  the  most  important  is 
that  with  verbs  of  feeling  or  consciousness.  Speaking 
generally,  the  tendency  is  to  assimilate  the  constr.  of 
these  to  that  of  ordinary  trans,  verbs,  and  so  to 
restrict  the  use  of  the  gen. :  on  the  other  hand,  there 
are  words  of  sense  more  or  less  akin  to  these,  where 
something  of  a  partitive  sense  comes  in,  so  that  the 
gen.  is  used  freely.  Alo-Odvto-Oai  occurs  only  once  in 
the  N.  T.  (Luke  ix.  45),  and  then  c.  ace.  rciWflcu  in 
Heb.  vi.  4,  5  has  the  gen.  where  it  is  merely  a  verb  of 
sense,  the  ace.  where  it  is  used  of  the  recognition  of  a 
fact — KoAoi/  being  (as  its  position  shows)  a  predicate, 
'AKOVZIV  (disregarding  cases  where  it  is  used  absol.,  or 
introducing  an  oratio  obliqua,  a  Trcpt  c.  gen.,  or  the  like) 
has  regularly  a  gen.  of  the  speaker  or  an  ace.  of  the 
thing  heard.  The  two  are  rarely  combined — Acts  i. 
4  is  the  only  unquestionable  case  :  in  Matt.  vii.  24,  26 
fjiov  may  be  regarded  as  merely  possessive,  as  crov  in 
Philem.  5  must  be.  More  commonly,  when  it  is  desired 
to  express  both  what  is  heard  arid  from  whom,  the 
latter  is  expressed  by  a  prep.,  usually  Trapd  (John  viii. 
38,  40,  Acts  x.  22,  xxviii.  22,  2  Tim.  i.  13,  ii.  2;  cf. 
also  John  i.  40,  vi.  45,  vii.  51,  where  the  ace.  is  absent 
— in  2  Tim.  i.  13  it  is  attracted),  but  sometimes 


88    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

OLTTO  (1  John  i.  5;  also  without  an  ace.,  Acts  ix.  13). 
All  this  agrees  \\ell  enough  with  classical  usage, 
though  the  simple  gen.  is  relatively  rarer,  in  com- 
parison with  the  use  of  a  prep.,  or  of  a  ptcp.  such  as 
Ae'yorros  or  the  like,  making  an  approximation  to  a 
gen.  abs.  :  in  St.  Mark  alone  the  gen.  of  the  person  is 
commoner  than  the  ace.  <;f  the  thing.  But  we  also 
get  the  gen.  of  the  thing,  less  frequently  but  not  very 
rarely.  In  Mark  xiv.  64  TTJS  /2Xaor<£??fuas  is  over- 
whelmingly attested,  unlikely  as  it  is  a  priori  that  we 
should  have  not  only  a  meaningless  variation  from  the 
parallel  Matt.  xxvi.  65  (where  there  is  hardly  any 
authority  for  the  gen.),  but  a  constr.  unique  in  these 
two  Gospels.  We  have  the  gen.  rei,  however,  in  Luke 
vi.  47,  xv.  25,  xviii.  36  (yet  this  passage,  and  perhaps 
the  preceding,  compared  with  John  vii.  32,  shows  that 
the  line  between  person  and  thing  is  not  always  clear), 
John  vii.  40,  xix.  13  (true  text),  and  perhaps  a  double 
gen.  in  John  xii.  47,  Acts  xxii.  1  (as  in  Matt.  vii.  24,  26, 
noted  above,  it  is  possible  to  regard  /xou  as  possessive, 
but  the  order  gives  more  reason  for  taking  it  with  the 
verb:  see  pp.  55-6).  Acts  vii.  34,  Ileb.  iii.  7,  15, 
iv.  7,  are  hardly  N.  T.  instances :  the  thrice  repeated 
passage  in  Heb.  is  verbatim  from  the  LXX. :  the 
passage  in  Acts  is  not,  but  perhaps  is  influenced  by  a 
reminiscence  of  the  LXX.  style,  in  which  this  constr. 
is  certainly  commoner  than  in  the  N.  T.  Rom.  x.  14, 
Col.  i.  23,  are  still  less  clear  cases :  the  gen.  in  the 
latter  is  almost  certainly  determined  by  attraction 
(cf.  Eph.  i.  13),  and  in  the  former  it  almost  seems  as 
though  the  sense  required  irepl  ov,  and  the  simple  gen. 
were  a  condensed  or  as  it  were  attracted  expression  of 
this.  Eph.  iv.  21,  if  regarded  as  an  ace.  of  the  person, 


DIFFERENT  CASES  AFTER  <JicoiW.       89 

is  unique :  but  the  context  shows  that  avrov  is  re- 
garded as  the  lesson  rather  than  the  Teacher. 

But  we  have  postponed  hitherto  the  consideration 
of  one  rather  Hebraistic  phrase,  which  in  sense  is  in  a 
way  intermediate  between  the  cases  where  the  object 
is  a  person  and  a  thing — viz.  "  hearing  a  voice."  We 
observe  that  the  phrase  is  almost  confined  to  three 
books — the  Acts,  and  St.  John's  Gospel  and  Apocalypse 
— with  three  or  four  exceptions,  mostly  quotations  from 
the  O.  T.  Of  these  isolated  cases,  Matt.  xii.  19  (a 
quotation,  but  not  from  the  LXX.)  has  the  ace.  :  so 
lias  2  Peter  i.  18.  Heb.  iii.  7,  15,  iv.  7,  as  already 
noted,  is  from  the  LXX.,  and  has  the  gen. :  so  has 
xii.  19,  where  however  the  gen.  is  not  <f><ovfjs  but  a  rel. 
referring  to  it,  and  this  may  possibly  not  depend  on 
d/coucravre?  only,  but  have  its  case  determined  by  in- 
direct influence  from  \6yov  and  even  Trapynqo-avTo. 

In  the  books  that  use  the  phrase  freely,  we  have 
the  gen.  in  Acts  ix.  7,  xi.  7,  xxii.  7,  John  v.  25,  28, 
x.  3,  16,  27,  xviii.  37  (possibly,  like  xii.  47,  a  double 
gen.),  Rev.  iii.  20,  xiv.  13,  xvi.  1,  xxi.  3;  and  the  ace. 
in  Actsix.  4,  xxii.  9,  14,  xxvi.  14,  John  iii.  8,  v.  37, 
Rev.  i.  10,  v.  11,  vi.  6,  7  (best  text),  ix.  13,  x.  4,  xii. 
10,  xiv.  2,  xviii.  4,  xix.  1,  6,  xxii.  8,  18,  and  indirectly 
in  iv.  1,  xi.  12,  and  a  second  time  in  xiv.  2.  In 
xi.  12  the  authorities  for  the  gen.  and  ace.  are  nearly 
evenly  balanced. 

In  view  of  this  evidence,  is  it  possible  to  draw  any 
distinction  of  sense  between  OLKOVZLV  <f>wvfjs  and  CJXDVIJV  1 
So  far  as  there  is  any  distinction  between  the  two  con- 
structions with  verbs  of  sense  generally,  it  seems  to  be 
that  the  gen.  represents  the  matter  as  one  affecting 
the  subjective  consciousness,  and  the  ace.  as  a  discovery 


90  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  external  fact — compare  Soph.  EL  79  with  Id.  Phil. 
445.     But  the  distinction  is  hardly  consistently  main- 
tained, even  in  pure  Attic  Greek  :  in  the  N.  T.  the 
two  cases  seem  to  be  used  indifferently  as  regards  the 
sense.     In  the  special  instance  before  referred  to  of 
Acts  ix.  7  and  xxii.  9,  it  would  be  meaningless  to  say 
that  Saul's  companions  "  were  conscious  of  the  voice 
speaking  " — still  more,  that  they  "  hearkened  to  the 
voice  " — but  that  they  "  did  not  hear  that  there  was  a 
voice  "  :  if  we  had  had  the  cases  reversed  in  the  two 
passages,  it  would  be  possible,  though  even  then  far- 
fetched, to  say  that  they  "  heard  that  a  voice  spake," 
but  did  not  "  hearken  to  it  "  in  the  sense  that  Saul  did. 
We  have  examined  this  constr.  at  perhaps  dispro- 
portionate length,  as  a  sample  of  the  way  that  evidence 
of  usage  can  be  accumulated,  and  its  value  for  exegeti- 
cal  purposes  estimated.     The  student  may  examine 
for  himself  how  far  usage  is  similar  with  the  rarer 
compounds  CMT-,  CTT-,  and  TrapaKovtw,  and  how  it  differs 
more  extensively  with  VTTCHK.     Equally  impossible  does 
it  appear,  to  trace    a    distinction  in  sense    between 
jjLVTjimovevcLv  c.  gen.  and  c.  ace. :  see  esp.   1  Thess.  i.  3, 
ii.  9.     That  €7nAai/$ai/eo-#ai  has  a  gen.  in  Heb.  vi.  10, 
xiii.  2,  16,  but  an  ace.  in  Phil.  iii.  13,  is  less  of  a  mere 
accident — not  that  the  sense  is  different,  but  that  the 
more  cultivated   writer   uses   the    constr.    commoner 
in  literary  Greek :  such  verbs  generally  take  the  geri. 
in  classical  writers,  though  the  ace.  is  found  even  in 
good  Attic.     'Avafjufjivrjo-Kto-Oai  has  always   the  ace.  in 
the  N.  T.  (even  in  Mark  xiv.  72,  true  text). 

Similar  in  principle  to  these  verbs  of  consciousness  is 
the  use  of  evTrveW  c.  gen.  in  Acts.  ix.  1 — though  meta- 
phorical, the  constr.  is  the  same  as  that  of  o^etv.  Of 


CASES   USED    WITH   VERBS  OF  TOUGH.     91 

words  of  touching  or  grasping,  where  the  gen.  may  be 
regarded  as  either  an  object  of  sense  or  as  partitive, 
the  constr.  generally  but  not  always  coincides  with  the 
classical  use.  *A7rreo-0eu  has  always  the  gen. — some- 
times a  double  gen.,  though,  as  in  similar  cases  already 
noted,  the  gen,  of  the  person  may  be  conceived  as 
possessive :  so  e^earOai  and  dvre^ecr^at :  avi^crOai  too 
gets  this  constr.,  as  it  began  to  do  in  late  Attic. 
Aa/x/Sai/ecr^ai  is  never  used,  but  avTiAa/u,/?.  has,  as  always, 
a  gen.,  so  IviX.  generally,  but  comparing  Acts  XA^i.  19, 
xviii.  17  with  xvii.  19,  xxi.  30,  33,  it  appears  that  St. 
Luke  sometimes  allowed  himself  to  use  it  in  the  ace., 
in  places  where  Kparetv  would  be  so  used.  In  Matt. 
v.  28  €Tri0v[A€iv  probably  has  an  ace.  :  this  is  said  to 
be  found  as  early  as  Menander.  In  Matt.  v.  6, 
also,  a  gen.  of  the  thing  hungered  and  thirsted  for 
would  have  been  more  classical.  MeXeti/  (TLVI)  has  its 
classical  constr.  with  the  simple  gen.  only  in  1  Cor. 
ix.  9 — elsewhere  it  has  7re/ot  c.  gen. 

(b)  Adjectives. 

As  a  rule,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  N.  T. 
constr.  of  adjectives  and  that  of  earlier  Greek,  in  such 
respects  as  their  concord  with  substantives,  their  use 
absolutely  or  as  predicates,  and  the  like.  Perhaps  the 
absolute  or  substantival  use  of  neut.  adjectives  with 
the  art.,  both  sing,  and  pi.,  is  commoner  than  in  earlier 
Greek  :  so  (as  already  mentioned,  p.  45),  is  the  position 
of  the  adj.  after  its  subst.,  the  art.  being  used  with 
both  :  at  least  this  order  seems  to  imply  a  less  degree 
of  emphasis  on  the  adj.  :  see  e.g.  Rev.  xii.  14,  and  the 
solecistic  xiv.  19.  But  except  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  dif- 
ference is  hardly  appreciable :  it  is  at  most  one  of  degree. 


92  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

It  is  otherwise,  when  we  compare  the  N.  T.  use 
with  the  classical  of  the  degrees  of  comparison.  Here 
we  seem  to  find  N.  T.  Greek  suffering  from  both  its 
common  sources  of  corruption,  the  internal  decay  of 
Greek  grammatical  usage,  and  the  influence  of  Semitic 
languages  which,  in  this  as  in  other  respects,  were  less 
highly  organised  than  the  Greek.  The  piling  up  of 
emphasis,  till  expressions  originally  emphatic  become 
commonplace,  shows  itself  in  the  more  frequent  use 
of  comparatives  and  superlatives  "  of  eminence  "  :  and 
partly  perhaps  from  this  cause,  more  certainly  from 
the  native  tendency  of  the  later  language  to  become 
"  analytical,"  and  multiply  little  words — partly  also 
from  the  fact  that  tins  tendency  would  be  encouraged 
by  assimilation  to  Hebrew  idiom — we  get  the  pos., 
comp.,  and  sup.  degrees  each  used  in  places  where  one 
of  the  others  would  seem  more  appropriate. 

The  pos.,  indeed,  is  never  used  absolutely  in  a  comp. 
sense.  In  Matt,  xviii.  8,  9,  KaXov  croi  COTIV  (or  in  the 
parallel  Mark  ix.  43-5  KaXov  lariv  ere)  is  not  exactly 
equivalent  to  KaXXiov  CTOL  ICTTIV  :  rather,  there  is  an 
omission  of  paXXov  before  the  rj,  so  that  the  case  is 
like  the  third  parallel,  Luke  xvii.  2,  A/uo-ireXet  .  .  .  %  : 
cf.  XV.  7,  xapa  co-rat  ...?/,  also  xviii.  14,  if  y]  eVcu'os  or 
j)  jap  e/ceu/os  be  read.  In  all  these  phrases,  T}  is  treated 
as  of  itself  expressing  a  comparison — an  extension  of 
such  idioms  as  Oi\u  .  .  .  rj,  which  we  get  in  1  Cor.  xiv. 
19.  Within  limits,  this  use  is  quite  classical  (e.g. 
even  II.  i.  117):  and  perhaps  the  extension  of  it  is 
rather  characteristic  of  colloquial  than  of  late  Greek  : 
at  least  the  extreme  instance  of  it,  KaXov  io-nv  .  .  .  r/ 
has  a  parallel  to  it  quoted  from  Menander. 

But  the  use  of  Trapd  and  v-rrep  after  adjectives  to 


MODE W  OF  COMPARISON  IN  LATE  GREEK.  93 

express  comparison  is  more  certainly  a  symptom  of 
decay.  In  some  sentences,  of  course,  the  use  of  these 
prepositions  in  comparisons  is  legitimate.  In  a  verbal 
phrase  like  /career/  OVTOS  SeSiKaia>//,evos  .  .  .  Trap  e/ceu/ov 
(Luke  xviii.  14,  best  text)  we  have  a  genuine  Greek 
idiom,  or  at  most  an  extension  of  one  :  and  similarly 
djU-aprooA-oi  or  o^etXerat  eyei/cnro  Trapa  TrdVras  (xiii.  2,  4) 
would  be  defensible.  But  in  xvi.  8  (<£pow/xarrepoi  v-rrep), 
Heb.  iv.  12  (ro/Acurepos  vTrep),  or  Heb.  xi.  4,  xii.  24 
(TrAeiova,  /cpetrrov  .  .  .  Trapa)  it  is  plain  that  we  have 
gone  beyond  the  precedents  of  a  few  classical  passages, 
where  Trapa  is  used  pleonastically  with  a  word  like 
a/xeii/oi/,  /xei£a>i/,  or  /xaAAov.  It  may  not  be  easy  to  say 
exactly  where  the  bounds  of  pure  Greek  were  passed  : 
Heb.  ii.  7  (from  LXX.),  iii.  3  are  intermediate  cases  : 
but  already  we  are  on  the  road  to  the  usage  of  modern 
Greek,  in  which  Trapa  is  the  ordinary  word  for  "  than  " 
after  a  comp.,  and  even  loses  its  constr.  as  a  prep., 
being  followed  by  the  nom. 

The  extension  of  this  use  of  the  prep,  in  later  usage 
almost  amounts  to  a  proof  that  it  was  the  result  of  a 
tendency  native  to  the  Greek  language  itself.  But 
that  it  showed  itself  earlier  in  biblical  than  in  other 
Greek  (both  Trapa  and  vTrep  are  often  used  in  the 
LXX.)  may  be  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  in  Hebrew 
there  are  no  degrees  of  comparison,  and  that  the  sense 
of  them  has  to  be  expressed  by  the  help  of  prepositions. 
Certainly  we  find  a  vagueness  in  the  use  of  the  degrees 
in  certain  passages  of  the  Gospels,  which  seems  to  have 
a  Hebraistic  origin.  It  is  paradoxical  to  deny  that 
the  pos.  fji€ya\.rj  *  in  Matt.  xxii.  36,  the  comp.  /u/cpoYcpos 

*  We  may  notice  in  passing  the  anomalous  ctroXr; 
TT&VTUV  of  the  parallel,  Mark  xii.  28  (true  text). 


94  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


in  Matt.  xi.  11  =  Luke  vii.  28,  /xeifajv  in  Matt,  xviii.  1 
(hardly  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  13)  are  practically  equivalent 
to  superlatives;  even  in  Mark  ix.  34,  Luke  xxii.  24 
the  distinction  of  comp.  and  sup.  is  not  kept  clear.  In 
John  i.  15,  30,  and  perhaps  even  xv.  18,  there  may 
well  be  a  reason  why  TT/OGJTOS  is  used  rather  than  Trporepos. 
St.  John  wants  to  express  an  absolute  First,  not  a 
mere  priority  in  degree  ;  and  there  are  signs  that  in 
the  Gospel,  as  still  more  in  the  Apocalypse,  he  does 
not  mind  straining  the  rules  of  language,  if  it  fails 
to  suggest  such  thoughts  as  this-  without  straining. 

The  use  of  the  comp.  where  there  is  no  comparison, 
as  a  sort  of  milder  sup.  of  eminence,  is  of  course  a 
genuine  Greek  idiom  :  any  one  might  have  written  the 
KOiivorepov  or  SctcrtSat/xoveo-re/Dovs  (whatever  be  the  exact 
shade  of  meaning  of  the  latter)  which  we  get  in  Acts 
xvii.  21,  22.  Yet  we  may  doubt  whether  a  purer 
classical  writer  would  have  used  the  two  in  adjacent 
sentences  :  and  when  we  come  to  TOL^LOV  in  John  xiii. 
27,  1  Tim.  iii.  14  (si  vera  I.),  or  KaAAiov  in  Acts  xxv.  10, 
/SeXnov  2  Tim.  i.  18,  it  seems  as  though  the  comp. 
were  losing  its  distinctive  force. 


CHAPTER  V. 

CHARACTERISTICS    OF   N.    T.   GREEK    IN   THE    SYNTACTICAL 
USE   OF    VERBS    AND    PARTICIPLES. 

(a)  Of  the   Voices. 

THE  idiomatic  use  of  the  middle  voice — esp.  the 
transitive  use,  where  the  active  might  for  the  most 
part  have  stood,  but  the  middle  introduces  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  sense — is  one  of  the  refinements  in  Greek 
idiom,  which  is  perhaps  beginning  to  be  blurred  in 
some  of  the  N.  T.  writers,  but  is  preserved  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  in  most.  Thus  atreu/  and 
aiTtlo-Oai  are  used  quite  interchangeably  in  James  iv. 
2,  3,  1  John  v.  14,  15,  16.  But  in  Mark  vi.  23-5, 
though  there  is  no  difference  of  sense,  the  difference 
of  voice  corresponds  to  that  of  constr.  with  the 
single  or  double  ace.  :  so  x.  35  (true  text),  38 ;  while 
in  the  parallel  passage,  Matt.  xx.  20,  22,  it  seems 
to  correspond  with  a  difference  of  sense — the  mother 
asks  for  her  sons,  but  the  family  for  itself  as  a  whole. 
In  the  use  of  vo-repctv,  -eto-0ai,  there  seems  to  be  no 
correspondence  between  the  variations  of  voice  and 
those  either  of  sense  or  of  constr.  :  the  act.  in  Heb. 
iv.  1,  xii.  15  means  exactly  the  same  as  the  mid. 
in  Rom.  iii.  23,  and  in  2  Cor.  xi.  5,  xii.  11  it  has 
the  same  general  sense,  and  exactly  the  same  constr. 
The  most  of  a  distinction  traceable  is,  that  where  the 


96  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

sense  is  "  wanting  "  a  possession,  riot  "coming  short  of" 
a  standard,  the  act.  is  used  c.  gen.,  the  mid.  absolutely. 

So  far  as  the  use  of  the  middle  shows  signs  of  decay, 
it  is  that  it  is  simply  disused,  not  that  it  is  used 
incorrectly.  HXypovfjievov  in  Eph.  i.  23  is  perhaps 
the  only  case  where  the  sense  seems  to  be  merely 
the  same  as  the  act.  (the  Attic  usage  of  the  middle 
for  "  manning "  a  ship  is  no  real  parallel).  But 
€vpiorK€o-9oLi  "  to  get "  as  distinct  from  evpto-Keiv  "  to 
find  "  has  all  but  disappeared,  though,  if  the  verb 
is  to  stand  in  Rom.  iv.  1  at  all,  the  middle  would 
be  just  in  place:  in  fact,  we  find  it  in  Heb.  ix.  12 
only.  The  act.  is  common  throughout  the  N.  T., 
whether  in  its  plain  and  classical  sense,  as  Matt.  ii. 
8,  or  in  Hebraistic  phrases  like  Luke  i.  30. 

More  interesting  are  such  points  as  these.  St. 
Paul  (the  rule  would  also  hold  good  of  James  v.  16, 
but  not  of  M.att.  xiv.  2  =  Mark  vi.  14)  uses  Ivepytlv 
with  a  personal  subj.  (1  Cor.  xii.  6,  11,*  Gal.  ii. 
8  bis,  iii.  5,  Eph.  i.  11,  20,  ii.  2,*  Phil,  ii,  13), 
Iv€py€icr6ai  with  an  impersonal  (Rom.  vii.  5,  2  Cor.  i. 
6,  iv.  12,  Gal.  v.  6,  Eph.  iii.  20,  Col.  i.  29, 
1  Thess.  ii.  13,t  2  Thess.  ii.  7).  Again,  "to  be 
baptized  "  is  naturally  expressed  as  a  rule  as  a  pass.  : 
of  course  it  is  only  in  the  fut.  or  aor.  that  this  is 
distinct  in  form  from  the  mid.,  but  in  those  tenses 
as  in  others  it  is  the  rule.  We  have  however  the 
mid.  in  Acts  xxii.  16,  and  perhaps  (authorities  are 
very  evenly  balanced)  in  1  Cor.  x.  2.  In  view  of 
1  Cor.  i.  14  sqq.,  we  cannot  say  that  the  person 

*  We  note  that  irvev^a,  good  or  evil,  ranks  as  a  personal  agent, 
f  Here  however  we  might  take  Beou,  not  \6yov,  as  ante- 
cedent to  os. 


USE   OF  INDICATIVE  TENSES.          97 

of  the  baptizer  was,  in  the  apostolic  Church,  a 
question  of  no  importance,  or  that  the  ego  te  baptizo 
of  Western  ecclesiastical  usage  implies  a  change  from 
the  apostolic  point  of  view :  but  we  do  see  that 
the  convert  in  "  getting  baptized  "  was  conceived  as 
doing  something,  not  merely  having  something  done 
to  or  for  him. 

(1)}  The  N.  T.  Use  of  the  Tenses  of  the  Indicative. 
The  Greek  verb  possesses,  in  its  large  variety  of 
inflected  forms,  a  very  full  apparatus  for  the  ex- 
pression of  all  time  relations;  and  most  of  the 
languages  of  modern  Europe  are  able  to  express  the 
same  relations,  by  means  either  of  such  inflexions 
as  survive  in  them,  or  of  auxiliary  verbs.  In  the 
N.  T.,  the  modern  student  finds  that  hardly  any 
of  the  classical  Greek  inflexions  of  the  verb  have 
fallen  out  of  use,  and  that  as  a  rule  each  of  them 
retains  the  force  that  it  had  in  classical  Greek.  Yet 
it  would  be  over  hasty  for  him  to  assume  without 
enquiry,  that  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  regarded  the 
temporal  conditions  of  action  from  exactly  the  same 
point  of  view  as  classical  Greek  writers :  we  have 
to  ask,  How  far  does  the  Greek  of  the  N.  T.  preserve 
unimpaired  the  classical  use  of  the  various  tenses? 
is  there  a  tendency  either  to  confound  some  of  them 
among  themselves,  or  to  limit  or  extend  the  use 
of  some,  according  to  Hebraic  analogies  ? 

Perhaps  the  latter  influence  is  traceable  to  some 
extent,  but  if  so  it  is  only  within  narrow  limits. 
The  Semitic  tense  system  (if  indeed  the  word  Tense 
be  properly  applicable  to  it)  was  so  utterly  different 
from  the  Greek  that  assimilation  of  one  to  the  other 

7 


98  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

was  impossible,  unless  by  downright  solecism.  One 
solecism  probably  traceable  to  this  source  we  have 
in  Rev.  x.  7,  where  /cat  ereAe'o-^  seems  to  mean 
practically  TtXeo-Orja-eTai,  like  a  so-called  "  preterite 
with  1  conversive "  in  Hebrew.  It  is  indeed  said 
that,  except  that  the  apodosis  is  introduced  by  /cat, 
we  have  here  only  a  parallel  to  John  xv.  6,  1  Cor.  vii. 
28,  where  an  aor.  stands  in  the  apodosis  to  a  con- 
ditional sentence  as  here  to  a  temporal :  but  this 
seems  to  be  a  stronger  case  of  non-Hellenic  constr. 
Perhaps  also  the  transition  from  futures  through 
presents  t:>  preterites  in  Rev.  xi.  7-11  (cf.  xx.  7-9), 
may  be  partly  ascribed  to  Hebraic  habits  of  ex- 
pression, though  the  psychological  condition  of  a 
"  seer  of  visions  "  is  probably  explanation  enough. 

Nowhere  however  in  the  N.  T.  outside  the  Apocalypse 
do  we  get  any  confusion  about  the  straightforward  use 
of  the  Greek  tenses  to  indicate  past,  present,  and  future 
time.  If  there  be  any  change  in  their  use  due  to 
foreign  influence,  it  is  confined  to  a  certain  slight 
extension  of  the  use  of  the  pres.,  the  tense  which 
may  be  considered  the  most  general,  and  most  capable 
of  having  its  use  extended  without  violence  to  the 
language.  The  historical  pres.  is  very  much  com- 
moner in  the  N.  T.  than  in  ordinary  Greek;  and 
though  this  is  in  no  sense  a  Hebraism,  it  does  appear 
to  be  a  Hellenistic  peculiarity.  In  the  LXX.  it  has 
been  observed  that,  while  historical  presents  as  a  rule 
are  rare,  they  are  very  common  in  the  case  of  two 
verbs — Aeyet  and  bpa.  In  the  N.  T.  opav  is  not  a 
very  common  word — /3Ae7mv  is  much  oftener  used, 
and  OeacrOai  and  0e(op€ti/  each  nearly  as  often;  as  a 
hist.  pres.  opa  occurs  only  in  Luke  xvi.  23.  But  Xeyet 


LIMITS  OF  USE  OF  HISTORICAL  PRESENT.  99 

is  very  common  in  all  the  historical  books,  except 
St.  Luke, — most  so  in  St.  John,  who  has  Aeyet  some 
113  times,  and  Xtyovorw  7.  In  Matt,  they  occur  49 
and  16  times  respectively,  in  Mark  54  and  12,  in 
Luke  never  in  the  narrative  of  the  Gospel,  and  only 
twice  (xvi.  29,  xix.  22)  in  parables,  once  (xxi.  37) 
in"Xcts.  Now  the  difference  of  proportion  between 
the  sing,  and  pi.  is  prob.  only  an  accident,  the  sing, 
being  more  common — etTrev,  which  is  practically  the 
preterite  of  Aeyet,*  occurs  in  St  Matthew  about  119 
times,  etTrav  or  -TTW  21.  But  that  the  pres.  of  this 
verb  is  more  frequently  used  than  that  of  others  can 
be  roughly  shown  by  this  calculation.  The  passages 
from  the  Gospels  containing  enretv  and  Aeyeii/  occupy 
36  columns  in  Bruder's  Concordance,  those  containing 
and  eAfleti/  about  9|.  Now  cp^erat  and 
are  used  as  historical  presents  only  4 
times  in  St.  Matthew,  23  times  in  St.  Mark,  only 
once  (viii.  49)  in  St.  Luke,  15  times  in  St.  John.  We 
may  say  then  that  the  idiom  is  (1)  specially  common 
with  the  particular  verb  Aeyeiv,t  (2)  specially  common 
with  other  verbs  in  the  crudest  and  least  literary  of 
the  N.  T.  writings. 

More  interesting  and  suggestive  are  the  cases  where 
the  sense  of  the  pres.  tense  seems  to  shade  off  into 
that  of  the  fut.  This  sometimes  arises,  in  part  at 
least,  from  the  nature  of  the  verb's  meaning :  as  in 

*  In  the  rather  numerous  caseS'Where  one  is  a  v.  1.  for  the 
other,  the  one  for  which  M  8.  evidence  decidedly  preponderates 
is  counted  :  if  there  be  fair  room  for  doubt,  it  is  reckoned  to 
neither  side. 

f  One  may  compare  the  use  of  ^irjaiv  in  classical  Greek :  also 
inquam  and  "  quoth  he,"  though  defective,  may  be  called 
presents. 


100  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  MEW  TESTAMENT. 

classical  Greek  the  pres.  et/u  "  I  am  going "  is  said 
to  havre  a  fut.  sense,  so  in  the  N".  T.  ep^o/xat  may 
be  said  to  have  one,  with  perhaps  better  right. 
Not  only  does  the  ptcp.  ipxpftcvos  practically  mean 
"  future "  in  such  phrases  as  6  'Ep^o/xei/os  of  the 
Messiah,  still  more  ei/  TO>  alwvi  TO>  ep^o/ieVa),  and  6*12i/ 
Kal  6  THi/  Kal  6  'Ep^o/^ei/os  of  the  Eternal :  the  indie, 
has  more  or  less  of  a  future  sense  in  Matt.  xvii.  11,* 
xxiv.  42-3-4  (xxv.  6,  T.E.),  Mark  i.  7,  xiii.  35,  Luke  xii. 
39,  40,  54,  xvii.  20  bis,  xxiii.  29,  John  i.  3D,  iv,  21, 
23,  25,  35,  v.  24,  25,  28,  vii.  41-2,  ix.  4,  xi.  20,  xii. 
15  (fr.  0.  T.),  xiv.  3,*  18,*  28,t  30,  xvi.  2,  25,  32, 
xvii.  11,  13,  xxi.  3,f  Acts  xiii.  25, J  1  Cor.  xv.  35, 
2  Cor.  xiii.  1,  Eph.  v.  6,  Col.  iii.  6,  1  Thess.  v.  2, 
Heb.  viii.  8  (fr.  LXX.),  1  John  ii.  18,  iv.  3,  Rev.  i. 
7,*  ii.  5,*  16,*  iii.  11,  ix.  12,  xi.  14,  xvi.  15,  xxii.  7, 
12,  20 ;  in  by  no  means  all  of  which  is  a  supernatural 
visitation  spoken  of :  in  several  (e.g.  John  xxi.  3)  the 
sense  is  merely  "  (some  one  or  some  event)  is  coming. "§ 
Yet  even  in  some  of  these  passages,  e.y.  Luke 
xxiii.  29,  John  xvi.  32,  the  pres.  seems  to  have  a 
deeper  significance  than  this — one  that  can  be  traced 
where  the  pres.  of  other  verbs,  less  akin  in  meaning 

*  In  these  passages  the  word  is  actually  co-ordinated  with 
futur.es. 

f  Here,  and  in  John  vii.  33,  viii.  21-2,  xiii.  3,  33,  36,  xiv. 
4-5,  xvi.  5,  10,  17  virdyw  is  used  as  exactly  correlative  to 
tpXOfJLcu  :  cf.  also  iii.  8,  viii.  14.  In  the  other  three  Gospels, 
vwdyeiv  is  rare  except  in  the  imperative. 

J  This  passage,  and  others  parallel  with  some  previously 
cited,  are  not  grouped  with  them  as  forming  only  one  instance  : 
because  it  is  characteristic,  if  one  reproducer  of  a  saying 
.avoids  an  idiom  which  another  retains. 

§  Cf.  1  Cor.  xvi.  5,  Maicedovfav  yap  diepx0^0-1  '•  which  has 
been  misunderstood  (in  the  subscription  to  the  Ep.)  "  I  am 
pas.nny  through  M.,"  while  it  really  means  "  I  do  pass  through 
M.,"  that  is  the  way  I  am  going. 


TKXXEX  UO  II-  i'^\ '/•'  I  t£#?  'V. ' >' V>r  /.  Y  -/  "<#/).    101 

to  futurity,  is  used  in  a  sense  that  may  be  called  not 
only  prophetical,  but  strictly  predictive.  In  Matt, 
xx vi.  2,  ywcrai  is  parallel  to  e/j^erat  in  its  most  secular 
sense,  "  The  Passover  is  coming  on  :  "  but  TrapaSiSorat 
surely  means,  like  vTrayet  in  ver.  24,  that  His  delivery 
and  departure  were  part  of  the  eternal  counsel,  and 
while  yet  future  were  as  sure  as  if  actual.  So  Matt, 
ii.  4,  and  John  vii.  52  probably. 

Any  deviation  from  classical  usage,  then,  that 
there  may  be  in  the  use  of  the  pres.  tense  is  trace- 
able, partly  perhaps  to  the  merely  linguistic  influence 
of  Hebraised  Greek,  but  more  unquestionably,  and 
perhaps  more  largely,  to  the  special  requirements  of 
the  Scriptural  order  of  thought.  So  far,  there  are 
no  traces  of  mere  linguistic  decay,  of  loss  of  accuracy 
in  the  use  of  Greek  grammatical  forms.  It  is  hard, 
however,  to  be  equally  confident  that  the  same  may 
be  said  of  the  use  of  the  different  past  tenses.  But 
we  must  keep  the  question  separate,  "Are  the  uses 
of  the  perf.  and  the  aor.  confounded  in  N.  T.  Greek  ?  " 
from  the  question,  which  it  is  much  easier  and  safer 
to  answer  with  a  decided  affirmative,  "  Is  not  the 
aor.  often  used  in  N.  T.  Greek,  where  in  English  we 
should  use  the  compound  perf.  ?  arid  conversely  the 
perf.  (sometimes  though  more  rarely)  where  we  should 
use  the  simple  preterite  ? "  Even  in  languages  so 
similar  in  their  syntax  as  English  and  French,  the 
occasions  where  we  should  say  "  he  did  it "  or  "  he  has 
done  it "  are  not  respectively  identical  with  those 
where  one  would  say  "  il  le  fit  "  *  or  "  il  V  a  fait" — still 
less  does  "he  was  doing  it"  coincide  exactly  with 

*  Not  to  mention  that  this  tense  is  tending  to  drop  out  of 
u^c  in  elegant  and  modern  French. 


102  LAN'UJAdV  OF  TUtt  JEW  TESTAMENT. 

"  il  1%  faisait"  Much  less  then  can  we  expect  the 
use  of  the  two  Greek  inflected  tenses  to  be  so  abso- 
lutely identical  with  those  of  our  inflected  and  com- 
pound ones,  as  to  be  mechanically  interchangeable 
with  them. 

Before  approaching  this  question,  however,  it  may 
be  as  well  to  state  the  case  of  the  other  past  tenses, 
the  impf.  and  plupf.  With  neither  of  these,  on  the 
whole,  is  there  any  real  deviation  from  classical 
usage.  The  first  is  used  oftener,  the  second  less  often, 
than  its  distinctive  meaning  can  be  traced,  or  than 
the  corresponding  English  tense  would  be  used  in 
translation  :  but  the  same  is  equally  the  case  in  the 
purest  Greek,  and  the  fact  is  due,  partly  to  the 
smallness  of  the  distinction,  and  partly  perhaps  to 
euphony.  The  plupf.  was  always  a  rare  form,  perhaps 
because  (see  p.  33)  it  was  a  cacophonous  form,  and 
so  the  aor.  is  often  used  where  the  plupf.  would  suit 
the  sense :  on  the  other  hand,  the  impf.  is  often  used 
where  the  aor.  might  have  been,  be.-ause  the  sense  it 
is  desired  to  give  is  that  of  a  simple  preterite,  and 
neither  impf.  nor  aor.  is  this  and  nothing  more,  for 
while  the  one  represents  the  action  as  continuous  or 
habitual,  the  other  represents  it  as  individual  or 
instantaneous.  Esp.  it  has  been  noticed  that  eKeXevei/ 
is  used  where  we  should  have  expected  eKeAewev  :  and 
perhaps  the  same  will  be  found  to  hold  good  with 
vowel  verbs  as  a  class — that  their  impf.  is  often  used 
in  what  we  may  call  the  sense,  not  of  an  aor.  but  of 
a  simple  pret.  It  may  be  a  converse  process  that 
leads  to  the  use  of  the  impf.  dr^/cei/,  KaOrjKtv  in  appa- 
rently a  pres.  sense  in  Acts  xxii.  22,  Eph.  v.  4  (true 
text),  Col.  iii.  18  :  the  word  looks  like  an  aor.  or  perf. 


DISTINCTION  OF  PERFECT  AND  AORIST  103 

But  perhaps  we  may  rather  illustrate  by  the  English 
use  of  "  ought  "  (strictly  the  preterite  of  "  owe  "  : 
"  shall "  and  "  should  "  have  a  similar  etymology).  As 
this  sense  of  the  verb  is  late,  we  have  no  direct  illus- 
tration from  classical  usage. 

Coming  now  to  the  comparison  of  the  perf.  and 
aor.,  there  is  no  question  at  all  that  each  is  often 
correctly  used  in  its  distinctive  sense :  sometimes 
indeed  they  occur  side  by  side,  and  are  correctly 
distinguished.  Thus  in  the  LXX.  of  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  quoted 
in  Luke  iv.  18,  e^pto-ei/  /xe  is  "  He  anointed  Me  " — He 
did  it  once  ; — but  dbrearaA.*^/  /AC  •"  He  kathsent  Me  " — 
and  here  I  am  now.  Or  in  Luke  xiii.  2,  apapTuXol 
....  eyeVovro,  on  TOLVTO.  TrtTrovOacriv  \  *  may  be  trans- 
lated either  "Did  it  make  these  Galileans  sinners  .  .  .  ., 
that  they  have  [now]  suffered  these  things  ? "  or 
"  Were  these  Galileans  [at  the  time  of  their  life's  end] 
sinners  1  are  you  entitled  to  say  so  on  the  evidence 
of  the  fact  that  they  Jiave  so  suffered  ?  " — the  former 
being  the  stricter  and  more  logical  interpretation,  the 
latter  the  simpler  and  more  natural,  though  involving 
some  extension  of  the  force  of  on. 

Even  in  passages  where  the  aor.  might  easily  have 
been  substituted  for  the  perf.  or  conversely,  this  does 
not  prove  that  the  tense  actually  used  has  not  its 
proper  force.  In  1  Cor.  xv.  4,  it  would  have  been 
more  natural  to  write  fjytpOrj,  like  dtrc&atft'  and  Ird^rf 
before,  and  &cf>0r]  afterwards  :  but  the  very  fact  that 

*  Though  it  is  a  matter  of  exegesis,  not  of  grammar,  I  can- 
not pass  this  verse  without  a  protest  against  a  popular  optimist 
misapplication  of  it.  The  argument  is  not.  "  They  suffered, 
but  that  does  not  prove  that  they  sinned  : "  it  is,  <%  They 
suffered  for  their  sins,  but  they  were  no  worse  sinners  than 
you  :  "  "  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish." 


104  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  X FAY  TESTAMENT. 

St.  Paul  has  not  done  what  was  most  natural,  shows 
that  he  intends  to  couple  things  that  happened  once 
for  all  and  are  over,  and  the  thing  that  has  happened, 
and  its  result  is  eternally  present :  the  contrast  is 
stated  more  emphatically  in  the  eyei/o/xr/v  and  efyu  of 
Rev.  i.  18.  (In  Rom.  xiv.  9,  where  there  are  aorists 
only,  the  point  of  view  is  somewhat  different.) 

In  Mark  xv.  44,  there  is  hardly  a  difference  of 
sense,  but  an  intelligible  difference  of  treatment  of 
the  same  sense.  Pilate  may  have  said  to  St.  Joseph 
Mi)  r/S??  rtQvrjKtv  ;  and  to  the  centurion,  9Apa  TraXaa 
reOvrjKev ;  but  the  second  is,  and  the  first  is  not, 
thrown  into  the  past  tense,  because  the  second  is 
more  obviously  a  case  of  oratio  oUiqua  :  thus  airtOavzv 
is  more  nearly  equivalent  to  a  plupf.  than  a  perf. 
In  2  Cor.  xi.  25,  the  perf.  in  the  midst  of  aorists  gees 
quite  naturally  into  English.  Ibid.  xii.  9  (to  come 
to  instances  where  the  perf.  stands  alone,  and  it  is 
not  its  association  with  aorists,  but  the  prima  facie 
sense,  that  makes  us  doubt  if  it  retains  its  proper 
force),  el-rev  would  be  merely,  "  He  said,"  and  would 
leave  room  for  a  reply  of  the  Apostle's  :  while  etp^/cei/ 
intimates,  "  I  have  had  my  answer,  and  the  matter 
is  at  an  end."  Even  in  i.  9  we  can  feel  what  is  the 
effect  of  the  perf.  eo-^r/^a^ei/,  though  it  may  be  harder 
to  express  its  force  in  an  English  gloss.  On  the 
other  hand,  ibid.  ii.  13,  the  force  of  the  perf.  is  surely 
evanescent,  if  not  quite  vanished.  And  no  one  but 
a  doctrinaire  special  pleader  is  likely  to  deny  that  in 
Rev.  v.  7,  viii.  5  eiAr;<£ei/,  and  in  vii.  14  et/q^/ca,  are 
mere  preterites  in  sense :  it  is  hard  to  see  what  else 
the  perfects  can  be  in  Heb.  xi.  17,  28,*  James  i.  24. 
*  Of.  the  use  of  KeKaBapKc,  Jos.  Ant.  III.  viii.  3. 


NOT  CONSISTENTLY  MAINTAINED.     105 

If  the  three  instances  from  the  Apoc.  stood  alone, 
we  might  say  that  an  incorrect  use  by  this  one 
writer  proved  nothing  as  to  N.  T.  usage  generally, 
esp.  when  it  is  found  only  in  verbs  of  exceptional 
form  :  *  but  can  we  say  the  same,  when  we  find  the 
usage  paralleled  in  Heb.  and  St.  James,  whose  gram- 
matical knowledge  and  power  of  language  are  above, 
not  below,  the  level  of  the  rest  1 

And  it  seems  uncalled  for  to  deny,  that  the  aor. 
is  used  where  the  perf.  would  express  the  sense  more 
accurately,  somewhat  more  frequently  than  vice  versa  : 
though  far  less  often  than  where  the  auxiliary 
"  have  "  would  be  a  more  idiomatic  translation  of 
the  aor.  than  the  simple  preterite.  If  in  Isa.  Ixi.  1 
(already  quoted  from  Luke  iv.  18)  the  perf.  cbreVraAKev 
is  in  place,  what  difference  of  sense  is  there  in  xlviii. 
16,  where  we  have  aTrecrretXe^  ?  In  Horn.  xiii.  12, 
what  distinction  of  sense  can  there  be  between 
TrpoeKoif/tv  and  rJyytKej/?  or  in  Phil.  iii.  12  between 
Zka/Bov  and  rereXetw^at  ?  In  the  latter  passage,  the 
equivalence  of  the  tonses  (and  here  there  is  no  doubt 
tli  at  the  perf.  at  least  has  its  proper  force)  is  brought 
cut  by  the  use  of  KaT€i\r]<f>lvai,  coupled  with  the  aor. 
KareA>7/x</>$r/y,  —  the  perf.  form  being  in  the  pass,  rarer 
and  perhaps  more  cumbrous.  Or  to  take  instances 
from  one  Ep.  only,  are  not  the  aorists  equivalent 
to  perfects  in  Horn.  iii.  23,  27  (^na/oro^,  efeKAeto-07/), 
vdii.  15  (eAa/2ere  bis],  xi.  1,  4,  7  (aTrwo-aro,  KareAiTroi/, 
er)  ?  In  iii.  23,  viii.  15  they  are  coupled  with 


*  The  form  also  may  help  to  explain  the  use  of  the  perf. 
eupaKCLv  in  Luke  ix.  36.  There  the  sense  is  plainly  plupf. 
but  no  one  would  be  surprised  at  an  aor.  being  used  :  and 
eupaKav  looltn  like  an  aor.,  though  really  a  (late)  form  of  the 
perf. 


106  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

presents  :  in  xi.  1,  4  we  not'ce  that  the  tense  is 
St.  Paul's  own  choice,  for  in  both  places  the  parallel 
passages  of  the  LXX.  have  t^e  fut.  But  perhaps 
as  convincing  an  instance  as  any  in  the  N.  T.  is 
John  xi.  14,  where  Aa^apos  a.7re#avev  can  only  mean 
"  Lazarus  is  dead." 

On  the  whole  then  it  seems  necessary  to  admit 
that  the  distinction  between  aor.  and  perf.  is  begin- 
ning to  be  obliterated  in  the  N.  T.,  whether  we 
ascribe  the  fact  to  spontaneous  loss  of  accuracy 
among  Greek  speaking  people,  or  to  the  influence  of 
languages,  Semitic  and  perhaps  Latin,  that  had  not 
this  distinction  of  tense.  But  the  obliteration  has 
not  proceeded  very  far — hardly  beyond  the  avoiding 
of  the  use  of  either  tense  when  the  form  of  it,  in  a 
particular  verb,  was  rare,  doubtful,  or  cacophonous.* 
The  student  ought,  in  every  case,  to  look  for  a  reason 
for  one  tense  being  used  rather  than  the  other : 
though  he  must  not  expect  always  to  find  one,  still 
less,  even  when  he  does,  to  be  able  to  represent  the 
point  in  idiomatic  translation. 

(c)  The  Subjunctive  and  Optative  Moods,  and  the 
Indicative  in  Relative  Sentences. 

We  have  nothing  more  to  say  of  the  expression, 
in  the  N.  T.,  of  merely  temporal  relations.  Any 
irregularities  that  there  are  in  the  use  of  the  fut. 
are  not  in  its  use  as  a  real  direct  indie,  tense,  but 
in  its  relation  to  other  moods  and  types  of  sentence  : 
so  also  of  the  hypothetical  and  kindred  uses  of  past 
tenses.  In  other  moods  than  the  indie.,  the  distinc- 

*  In  Heb.  xi.  17,  it  is  likely  enough  that  irpocrevrivoxw  was 
used  as  more  sonorous  than 


OPTATIVE  DISUSED  IN  FINAL  CLA  USES.  107 

tion  between  the  pres.  and  aor.  is  not  so  much  that 
between  present  and  past  time,  as  between  continued 
and  instantaneous  action  :  and  for  this  purpose  the 
tenses  appear  to  be  used  quite  regularly,  on  exactly 
the  same  principles  as  in  classical  Greek. 

The  independent  uses,  moreover,  of  the  different 
moods  are  equally  correct.  We  get  the  deliberative 
or  cohortative  subj.  rather  often,  the  opt.  in  the 
strictly  optative  sense  not  seldom.  It  is  otherwise, 
when  we  come  to  the  use  of  the  moods  in  subordinate 
sentences  with  various  relations  to  the  principal  one  : 
here  we  find  some  vagueness  of  constr.  and  relaxa- 
tion of  rule,  and  still  more  change  in  the  propor- 
tionate frequency  of  modes  of  expression,  compared 
with  classical  Greek. 

The  most  important  of  these  changes  is,  that  the 
opt.  mood  is  rapidly  tending  to  become  obsolete,  as 
it  has  become  in  the  modern  language.  Its  most 
frequent  use  in  ordinary  literary  Greek  —  that  in 
final  sentences  dependent  on  a  past  tense  —  is  com- 
pletely obsolete  :  the  subj.  being  used,  probably,  in 
all  such  cases.  The  only  ones  where  it  can  be 
argued  that  the  opt.  is  retained  are  in  certain  cases 
where  verbs  are  used  whose  stems  end  in  o  :  e.g.  Sot 
in  Mark  viii.  37,  and  compounds  elsewhere,  yvol  ibid. 
ix.  30  etc.  These  are  undoubtedly  the  best  attested 
forms  (the  T.  R.  substitutes  more  regular  ones),  and 
they  have  an  optative  look  :  but  they  probably  are 
really  meant  for  subjunctives,  formed  on  the  analogy 
of  877X01  from  SrjXou  -ovv  *  :  when  we  have  a  real 


*  On  the  other  hand,  ^vaiovade  in  1  Cor.  iv.  ^,  fyXovre  in 
Gal.  iv.  17  are  in  all  probability  subjunctives.  This  suggests 
the  possibility  that  Sia/Se/ScuoOircu  in  1  Tim.  i.  7  may  be  one  : 


108  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

opt.  aor.  from  SiSoVcu,  as  in  Rom.  xv.  5,  2  Thess. 
iii.  16,  2  Tim.  i.  16,  18,  we  find  Sofy.  But  where  we 
find  AOH  the  bestj  attested  form  in  Eph.  i.  17, 
2  Tim.  ii.  25,  have  we  the  right  to  say  that  here  it  is 
not  opt.,  and  write  SGJT/  instead  of  80)17,  ^ne  onry  Pos~ 
sible  form  in  the  former  passages  ((  (It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  oldest  N.  T.  MSS.  are  without 
the  i  subscript  or  adscript  to  either  vowel.)  Perhaps 
the  truest  answer  is,  that  the  N.  T.  writers  always 
meant  (so  far  as  they  were  conscious  about  the 
matter  at  all)  to  use  the  subj.  :  but  that,  owing  to 
the  exceptional  form  of  words  of  this  type,  and  to 
the  fact  that  there  had  been  an  idiom  admitting  or 
requiring  the  opt.,  words  like  these  that  were  really 
of  opt.  origin  wei-e  allowed  to  be  used  Or,  to  put 
the  matter  differently,  we  may  say  that  the  regular 
forms  of  the  opt.  in  -OLJJLL  or,-oirjv  were  felt  to  have 
an  exclusively  optative  meaning:  but  that  Swr/,  though 
it  could  be  used  optatively,  "  sounded  right  "  when 
used  in  final  sentences  also. 

Yet  there  is  a  want  felt  by  the  N".  T.  writers  of 
a  distinction  corresponding  to  that  between  subj. 
and  opt.  in  final  sentences,  where  this  was  not  a 
mere  matter  of  grammatical  sequence,  the  one  after 
primary  and  the  other  after  historical  tenses,  but 
where  the  one  suggests,  more  forcibly  than  the  other, 
the  notion  that  the  purpose  was  a  certain  or  actual 
result.  In  such  cases,  the  N.  T.  writers  use  the 
fut.  indie,  where  classical  writers  would  put  the 
subj.,  and  the  subj.  where  they  would  put  the  opt. 

\vc  then  get  a  more  distinctive  sense  for  the  two  clauses, 
"knowing  neither  what  the  things  are  that  they  say,  nor 
about  ?<ihat  thing*  to  make  assertions." 


INDICATIVES  IN  FINAL  CLAUSES.     Iu9 

Curiously,  this  constr.  is  seldom  or  never  found 
(Rom.  iii.  4  is  the  best  attested  instance :  there  some 
MSS.  of  the  LXX.  also  have  i/i/o^o-as,  but  the  best 
-<n?s)  with  OTTOS,  which  can  take  the  fut.  in  classical 
Greek,  but  much  oftener  with  Iva — e.g.  Gal.  ii.  4 ;  * 
so  /XT;  or  /XT/TTOTC  in  Mark  xiv.  2,  Col.  ii.  8,  Heb.  iii. 
12  (with  /3\e7r€T€  fjirj  .  .  .  eoTae.  in  the  two  latter 
places,  cf.  o-KOTret  /x^  .  .  .  lartv  in  Luke  xi.  35).  The 
fut.  however  approximates  so  closely  in  form,  and 
still  more  according  to  modern  (and  not  very  modern) 
Greek  pronunciation  in  sound,  to  the  aor.  subj.,  that 
we  have  almost  always  more  or  less  interchange  of 
reading  between  them,  even  where  this  introduces 
the  anomaly  of  a  fut.  subj.  different  from  the  aor. 
In  1  Cor.  xiii.  3,  KavOrja-^^ai  is  almost  as  likely  to 
be  right  as  anything  :  in  John  xvii.  2,  Swcret  seems 
better  supported  than  -0-77 :  but  in  Luke  vii.  4 
critical  editors  agree  in  reading  irapc£rj.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  much  rarer  case  of  Iva  with  a 
pres.  indie.  If  MS.  evidence  is  to  prevail  in  such  a 
matter,  we  must  allow  that  Iva  yiv6xr/co/xei/  is  found 
in  1  John  v.  20 :  and  there  is  considerable  authority 
for  Iva  yivib(TKov<riv  in  John  xvii.  3.  See  also  critical 
motes  on  John  iv.  15,  Gal.  vi.  12,  Tit.  ii.  4,  and 
Westcott  and  Hort's  Appendix,  pp.  171-2. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  constr.  became  frequent 
in  later  Greek,  as  the  use  of  Iva  widened :  we  have 
it  as  early  as  St.  Ignatius  (ad.  Epk.  c.  4),  if  the  sole 

*  This  instance  deserves  the  more  notice,  because  there  a 
past  tense  precedes,  and  the  fut.  must  be  used  to  express  a 
modification  of  the  sense.  It  suggests  that  the  traitors  still 
entertain  the  design  for  which  they  then  "  came  in  privily 
to  spy  out  our  liberty":  translate  therefore  "that  they  may 
bring  us  into  bondage." 


110  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Greek  MS.  may  be  trusted.  We  can  hardly  decide 
whether  it  was  beginning  to  come  in  in  N".  T.  days, 
or  was  introduced  by  early  scribes :  the  scholarly 
scribes  of  the  middle  ages,  certainly,  eliminated  such 
forms  where  they  found  them. 

In  hypothetical  sentences,  the  constr.  is  generally 
in  accordance  with  classical  rules.  In  Luke  ix.  13 
(et  fJLrjTL  .  .  .  dyo/oacrco/xei/),  1  Thess.  v.  10  (etre  yprjyo- 
pwjji€i/  €LT€  Ka0€v$u>iJi€v)  the  use  of  €i  c.  subj.  is  not  an 
irregularity  but  a  refinement.  In  the  former  place, 
the  subj.  is  deliberative :  the  sense  is  "  unless  we  are 
to  buy,"  or  perhaps  "unless— are  we  to  buy?" — in 
the  latter,  the  verbs  in  the  protasis  are,  quite  cor- 
rectly, attracted  into  the  mood  of  the  apodosis.  But 
we  note  that  here  too  the  opt.  has  all  but  passed  out 
of  use  :  except  for  the  phrase  cl  rvyoi  twice  in  St. 
Paul  (1  Cor.  xiv.  10,  xv.  37)  the  only  instances  are 
in  the  last  chapters  of  Acts  and  in  1  Pet.  iii.  14,  17 
(true  text). 

Hypothetical  sentences  are,  however,  only  a  parti- 
cular case  of  rekitive  sentences,  and  come  under  the 
same  rule  with  them,  that  the  subj.  will  be  used  if 
the  relative  (pron.  or  particle)  that  introduces  the 
protasis  has  av  with  it,  and  not  otherwise.  And  this 
rule  is  broken  in  the  N.  T. — rarely  in  hypothetical 
sentences,  oftener  in  temporal,  perhaps  only  once 
(James  ii.  10)  with  a  rel.  pron.  The  use  of  et  c.  subj. 
in  1  Cor.  xiv.  5  has  parallels  even  in  Attic,  and  is 
quite  exceptional  in  the  N.  T.,  as  in  Attic  :  but  the 
lav  oiSa/xei/  of  1  John  v.  15  would  be  impossible  in 
classical  Greek,  while  in  the  N.  T.  it  is  only  the 
extremest  case  of  four  or  five.  In  the  other  cases, 
however  (Matt,  xviii.  19  [?],.  Luke  xix.  40,  Acts  viii.  31, 


MOODS  USED  IN  TEMPORAL  SENTENCES.  Ill 

1  Thess.  iii.  8) ;  the  verbs  being  presents  or  futures, 
the  difference  of  form  from  the  subj.  is  slight,  and  it 
appears  as  a  v.  I.  In  Mark  vi.  56,  Acts  ii.  45,  iv.  35, 
1  Cor.  xii.  2,  we  have  a  rel.  with  av  joined  to  an 
impf.  indie.,  in  a  frequentative  sense. 

Of  temporal  sentences,  there  are  a  few  where 
orai/  is  used  with  the  indie.  :  but  perhaps  they  are 
confined  to  the  two  least  correct  of  the  N.  T.  writers, 
St.  Mark  (iii.  11,  xi.  19,  25)  and  Apoc.  (iv.  9,  viii.  1). 
The  only  other  case  where  there  is  much  evidence 
for  the  constr.  is  Luke  xiii.  28,  and  there  it  is  not 
decisive  (as  indeed  it  hardly  is  in  the  other  cases 
cited,  except  the  first) :  if  it  be  admitted  there,  we 
have  another  case  where  the  fut.  ind.  approximates 
in  usage  as  in  form  to  the  aor.  subj.  The  converse 
case,  of  the  use  of  the  subj.  without  oV,  i>  confined 
to  the  case  of  words  meaning  "  until  "  (Luke  xiii. 
35  comes  under  this  principle,  even  if  we  omit  oV, 
which  is  uncertain,  and  retain  y^ei  ore,  which  is 
improbable),  and  this  is  much  commoner.  But  this 
is  not  to  be  called  incorrect,  hardly  even  post-classi- 
cal :  with  uypi  and  /xe^pt  it  is  at  most  non- Attic,  with 
ecu?  it  is,  in  good  Attic,  confined  to  poetry.  We 
note,  towever,  that  Luke  ii.  26  is  unique  in  the 
N.  T.  as  an  instance  (if  it  be  indeed  one  *)  of  the 
classical  constr.  of  irplv  av  c.  subj.  after  a  negative  : 
unique  likewise  is  the  undoubted  irpiv  c.  opt.  in  Acts 
xxv.  16,  where  a  sentence  of  this  type  is  spoken  of 
hypothetically — we  can  hardly  say  in  oratio  obliqua. 

*  Perhaps  the  best  attested  text  is  -n-plv  ?}  SLV  I8y  :  the  most 
widely  attested  is  -rrplv  Idy  or  irplv  ?)  i'fty  :  -rrplv  &v  'idy  is  found  in 
B,  and  was  found  in  F,  only,  irplv  ?)  iv  is  never  found  in 
good  Greek  :  but  irplv  and  irplv  ij  with  the  subj.  are,  though 
the  rule  is  to  use  &v. 


112  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

It  is  only  in  St.  Luke,  moreover,  that  we  get  the 
opt.  in  indirect  questions :  with  him  it  is  fairly 
frequent,  both  with  av  (Ev.  vi.  11,  Acts  v.  24,  x.  17— 
not  xvii.  20,  true  text),  and  without  it  (Ev.  i.  29, 
iii.  15,  viii.  9,  xxii.  23,  Acts  xvii.  11,  xxi.  33,  xxv.  24). 
In  Acts  viii.  31  *  (not  ii.  12,  nor  in  John  xiii.  24, 
true  text),  we  have  the  opt.  with  av  in  a  direct 
question.  We  get  the  subj.  in  indirect  questions 
(including  instances  of  tytw  TL  .  .  .,  etSeVat  TL  .  .  .,  and 
the  like),  in  Matt.  viii.  20,  xv.  32  -  Mark  viii.  2, 
Mark  vi.  36,  viii.  1,  Luke  xii.  5,  John  xii.  49,  etc.  : 
and  this  even  after  past  tenses — Mark  ix.  6,  xiv.  1, 
11,  40;  also  Luke  xxii.  2,  4,  Acts  iv.  21,  preceded 
by  TO.  We  have  not  included  here  Matt.  vi.  25  = 
Luke  xii.  22,  Matt.  x.  19  =  Mark  xiii.  11,  Luke 
xii.  29,  where  the  subj.  may  be  explained  as  having 
a  deliberative  sense. 

One  use  of  the  opt.  that  tends  to  disappear  from 
N.  T.  Greek  is  that  with  av  where  it  does  not  form 
an  apodosis  to  an  actual  conditional  sentence,  but  is 
used  categorically,  only  with  a  suggestion  of* hypo- 
thetical tone.  E.g.  in  Mark  iv.  13,  Horn.  v.  7  we 
should  probably  in  classical  Greek  have  had  the  opt. 
with  ai/,  whereas  in  the  N.  T.  we  find  the  fut.  indie. 

The  use  of  ov  prj  is  decidedly  commoner  in  the 
N.  T.  than  in  earlier  Greek.  Though  we  may  ascribe 
this  to  the  tendency  (p.  42,  etc.)  of  a  declining  lan- 
guage to  heap  up  emphatic  words  till  emphasis  is  lost, 
the  combination  always  retains  more  or  less  of  real 

*  The  sequence  of  moods  here  is  remarkable,  but  not 
meaningless.  The  eunuch  first  asks  in  despair,  "  How  is  it 
possible  that  I  should?"  then  comes  the  afterthought,  "unless 
some  man  will  guide  me."  The  fut,  indie,  thus  improves  the 
sense,  though  with  edit  it  is  an  irregularity. 


/.\r  DENIALS  AND  HOPELESS  WISHES.   113 

emphatic  force.  As  usual  in  constructions  where 
either  the  fut.  iridic.  or  the  aor.  subj.  may  be  used, 
the  one  constant!}7  appears  as  a  v.  1.  for  the  other  : 
but  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  fut.  in  Matt.  xv.  5, 
xvi.  22,  and  not  much  in  xxvi.  35,  John  iv.  14,  x.  5, 
Gal.  iv.  30.  In  Luke  x.  19  the  reading  is  doubtful  : 
elsewhere,  the  subj.  should  generally  stand.  There 
seems  to  be  no  distinction  of  sense  between  the  two  : 
it  is  always  (unless  possibly  in  Matt.  xv.  5)  predictive, 
not  prohibitory.  In  John  vi.  35,  if  we  follow  MS. 
evidence,  we  get  -jrtwdcrri  and  Sii/^o-ei  side  by  side. 
With  this  we  may  compare  the  more  anomalous  use 
of  the  aor.  subj.  in  Luke  xi.  5,  e£ei.  .  .  .  KOL  Tropevo-ertu 
.  .  .  KOI  eiTn?,  where  there  is  no  negative  preceding, 
but  a  question  equivalent  to  one. 

There  seems  to  be  no  deviation  from  classical  usage 
in  the  employment  of  past  tenses  of  the  indie,  to 
express  the  unreal  and  unattainable,  either  in  con- 
ditional sentences  strictly  so  called,  or  with  verbs 
of  hypothetical  meaning,  such  as  rjvxo^rjv  (Horn.  ix.  3), 
v)0€\ov  (Gal.  iv.  20),  c/3ov\dfjLrjv  (Acts  xxv.  22),  rjSvvaro 
(Mark  xiv.  5)  :  perhaps  one  may  add  eSct  (Matt.  xxv. 
27),  though  there  the  process  of  thought  that  leads 
to  the  use  of  the  tense  is  clearer,  "  it  was  thy  duty," 
at  the  past  time  when  thou  couldest  have  done  it, 
and  didst  not  :  cf.  the  use  of  the  imperfects  O.VJJKW 
and  KaOfJKtv  noted  011  p.  102.  This  constr.  serves  to 
explain  one  occurring  several  times  in  the  N".  T. — 
the  use  of  o<£eA.ov  c.  indie,  to  indicate  a  wish.  In  good 
Greek  w<£eAoj/  (in  Ionic  o</>.)  is  used  c.  inf. :  but  here 
we  have  it  with  past  indie,  tenses  (1  Cor.  iv.  8, 
2  Cor.  xi.  1.  Rev.  iii.  15  true  text)  in  a  wish  which 
is  not  realised,  with  a  fut.  intlic.  (Gal.  v.  12)  in  one 

8 


114   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

that  is  conceived  as  attainable.  The  former  constr. 
is  found  in  late  but  not  bad  Greek,  the  latter  is 
condemned  as  a  solecism. 

The  same  half -hypothetical  use  of  past  tenses  illus- 
trates a  constr.  like  that  of  Matt.  xxvi.  24,  KO\OV  ty 
aura)  ei  OVK  iycvvrjOr]  (in  Mark  xiv.  21  ^v  should  prob. 
be  omitted).  Here  however,  being  a  formally  hypothe- 
tical sentence,  it  would  have  been  more  regular  to  have 
put  av  in  the  apodosis  :  so  Acts  xxvi.  32  (eSiWro).  But 
this  type  of  sentence  serves  to  illustrate  the  omission 
of  av  in  John  ix.  33,  xv.  22,  perhaps  viii.  39,  xix.  11  : 
also  Gal.  iv.  15,  perhaps  2  Cor.  xi.  4. 

Different  from  these,  and  less  defensible  grammati- 
cally, is  the  use  of  past  tenses  of  the  indie,  with  ^  in 
Gal.  ii.  2,  iv.  11,  1  Thess.  iii.  5.  One  may  almost  say 
that  in  these  places  St.  Paul  feels  the  want  of  a  perf . 
subj. ;  that  he  does  not  remember  that  there  was  a 
rare  but  recognised  form  for  it,  and  that  he  does  not 
choose  to  use  the  cumbrous  periphrasis  with  the  ptcp. 
and  (o. 

(d)  The  Imperative  and  Infinitive  Moods. 

The  use  of  the  Imperative  Mood  in  the  1ST.  T.  pre- 
serves all  the  refinements  of  the  classical  language. 
For  the  distinction  of  sense  between  the  aor.  and  pres. 
tense,  note  Acts  xii.  8,  £co(Tai  .  .  .  vTroftrjo-ac  .  .  .  7re/oi- 
fiaXov  .  .  .,  but  oiKohovOti :  also  John  ii.  16,  apart  "  take 
them  away  and  have  done  with  it,"  .  .  .  //T)  Troietrc 
"  cease  to  make."  .  .  .  Even  in  1  Pet.  ii.  17,  though 
we  should  not  have  expected  a  distinction  between 
TLfjLjjo-are  and  rt/xare,  the  fact  of  the  juxtaposition  of 
the  two  forms  shows  that  the  author  meant  something 
by  it :  and  we  can  see  why  varying  acts  of  "  honour 


FORMS  OF  BIDDING  AND  FORBIDDING.    1 1 5 

to  all  men,"  whom  one  may  meet  at  different  times,  and 
who  have  different  characters  and  positions,  are  called 
for;  but  a  constant  habit  of  "honour  to  the  king," 
whose  position  and  relation  to  his  subjects  is  permanent. 

After  jjirj  the  distinction  of  the  tenses  appears  some- 
times to  be  the  same — e.g.  Luke  x.  4,  "  do  riot  [habit- 
ually] carry  "  ..."  do  not  salute"  [if  you  meet  any  one, 
as  you  occasionally  may].  But  generally  ^  with  the 
pres.  indie,  has  the  sense  "  Do  not  [go  on  doing  so  and 
so,  as  you  are  doing  now]  :  "  so  John  ii.  16  already 
cited,  Luke  vii.  13,  viii.  50,  52,  etc.  All  this  is  quite 
regular.  So  too  is  the  use  after  ^  of  the  pres.  imper., 
but  of  the  aor.  subj.  always  in  the  second  person  :  in 
Attic  as  in  the  1ST.  T.,  the  aor.  imper.  is  occasionally 
found  in  the  3rd. 

What  deviation  there  is  from  classical  usage  is  not 
in  the  use  of  the  imper.  itself,  but  of  certain  equivalent 
constructions.  The  indignant  ou  iravcrrj  .  .  .;  of  Acts 
xiii.  10  ought  not  to  be  watered  down  into  such  an 
equivalent.  But  there  seems  no  doubt  that  OVK  ZcrtcrOe 
in  Matt.  vi.  5  is  just  equivalent  to  the  /XT)  yiVecr^e  of 
ver.  16  :  so  constantly  where  the  Commandments  are 
quoted.  The  reason  of  this  is  no  doubt,  that  in 
Hebrew  the  fut.  is  regularly  used  after  a  uegative ; 
though  there  is  a  prohibitive  particle,  distinct  from 
the  categorical  negative  as  firj  from  ov.  We  get  the 
fut.,  however,  without  a  negative  in  what  at  least 
approaches  an  imperative  sense,  in  Matt.  v.  48  :  we 
note  that  the  LXX.  has  likewise  futures  in  the  pas- 
sages of  the  old  Law  which  this  recalls — Lev.  xi.  44, 
Deut.  xviii.  13. 

Not  a  Hebraism,  but  a  post- classical  constr.,  is  the 
use  of  iva  c.  subj.  in  an  imperative,  or  perhaps  rather 


116  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

precatory  sense — Mark  v.  23,  2  Cor.  viii.  7,  Eph.  v.  33. 
This  is  exactly  equivalent  to  the,  classical  use  of  OTTOS, 
usually  c.  fufc.  indie. 

Another  idiom  of  the  late  language  is  seen  in  the 
beginning  of  the  use  of  a<^cv,  a<£ere  as  an  auxiliary. 
In  Matt.  viii.  22  =  Lukeix.  60  every  one  can  see  that 
the  word  keeps  its  independent  verbal  meaning  and 
constr.,  "  leave  the  dead  to  bury  .  .  .,"  "let  them  alone 
that  they  may  .  .  .,"  so  John  xi.  44,  though  less  em- 
phatically, Matt.  xiii.  30,  Mark  vii.  27,  and  even  Matt. 
xix.  14  =  Mark  x.  14  =  Luke  xviii.  16.  But  in  Matt. 
.vii.  4  =  Luke  vi.  42,  a</>es  €/c/3aA.a>is  no  more  than  "Let 
me  cast  out : "  like  a</>es  or  as  in  modern  Greek,  the  word 
has  sunk  into  a  mere  auxiliary.  Such,  no  doubt,  is 
its  use  also  in  Matt,  xxvii.  49  =  Mark  xv.  36  :  though 
the  two  accounts  differ  as  to  the  speaker,  and 
consequently  as  to  the  use  of  sing,  or  pi.,  both 
mean  to  convey  the  same  general  sense  of  ironical 
scepticism.* 

Lastly,  we  may  note  under  this  head  tLe  few  N.  T. 
instances  of  infinitives  used  in  a  sense  more  or  less 
close  to  the  imper.  If  in  Luke  xxii.  42  we  read 
Trapei/ey/cai  or  7rapevey/<:ea/,t  we  have  aa  instance  of  the 
classical  (and  mostly  poetical)  use  of  the  inf.  in  prayers. 
It  is  hardly  of  any  use  to  discuss  how  nearly  the 
use  of  the  inf.  in  Rom.  xii.  15,  Phil.  iii.  16  is 

*  The  discrepancy  of  sense  therefore  disappears  which  is 
supposed  by  Dr.  Abbott  (Encycl.  Brit.,  art.  "Gospels"),  who 
takes  the  words  in  Matt,  to  mean  "  Desist  from  giving  the 
drink,"  in  Mark  "  Desist  from  mocking." 

f  Hapfreyice,  however,  has  the  high  authority  of  BDT, 
though  TrapeveyKOii  comes  nearest  to  the  character  of  a  reading 
that  will  account  for  both  the  others.  That  -/ce  in  D  at  least 
is  a  mere  itacism.  is  made  likelier  by  the  fact  that  d,  the 
parallel  Latin  version,  has  the  inf. 


EXTENDED    USE   OF  I'm   AND   5™.        117 

identical  with  this  :  it  is  at  any  rate  analogous  to  the 
quite  classical  epistolary  use  of  ^-atpetv  or  vyiaiVeiv  — 
we  remember  we  have  the  former  of  these  in  Acts  xv. 
23,  xxiii.  26,  James  i.  1. 

This  use  of  the  inf.,  in  fact,  is  only  a  slight  exten- 
sion of  one  of  its  proper  uses,  which  we  get  in  Acts  xxi. 
4,  21,  Tit.  ii.  2.  Here  we  must  not  say  that  Aeyai/  — 
still  less  \a\tiv  —  has  the  sense  of  commanding  :  we 
have  simply  the  common  inf.  of  oratio  obliqua,  only 
it  represents  an  original  imper.,  not  an  indie.  —  e.y.,  the 
Tyrian  disciples  TO>  flauAo)  e'Aeyov  "  Mr/  cTri/Jcuve,"  which 
St.  Luke  reports  by  eAeyoi/  .  .  .  //,r/  €7ri/3aiV€iv. 

Already  in  the  N".  T.  we  see  the  beginning  of  the 
tendency  which  has  prevailed  in  modern  Greek,  to  use 
tVa  c.  subj.  as  a  substitute  for  the  inf.,  in  almost  all 
its  relations  except  that  of  simple  oratio  obliqua,  and 
for  that  to  use  on  c.  indie.,  which  the  classical  language 
always  offered  as  an  equivalent.  Opinions  may  differ 
as  to  the  number  of  cases  in  which  Iva.  is  thus  to  be 
explained:  see  this  question  discussed  below,  p.  176. 
As  to  on,  it  is  probably  relatively  more  frequent 
than  in  earlier  Greek  *  —  especially  before  a  speech 
given  otherwise  in  oratio  recta,  so  that  the  ort  is  almost 
Greek  for  inverted  commas  :  notice  Luke  vii.  16,  where 
the  repeated  OTL  serves  to  mark  that  we  have  two 
sayings  of  the  people,  not  one  saying  in  two  clauses. 
In  Horn.  iii.  8  we  have  6Vt  as  a  quotation  mark  to  a 
cohortative  subj.,  in  John  ix.  11  (true  text),  2  Thess. 
iii.  10  to  imperatives  :  with  the  last  cf.  Epict.  Diss. 
I.  ii.  18,  TL  ovv  JJLOI  Aeyeis  OTL  'E^o/xotw^ri  rots 


*  The  anacoluthon  in  Acts  xxvii.  10,  where  OTL  stands 
redundantly  before  an  ace.  and  inf.,  is  not  without  classical 
precedent. 


118  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  no  sign  in  the  1ST.  T.  of  the 
inf.  tending  to  become  obsolete :  it  is  used  very  freely, 
and  on  the  whole  quite  correctly :  if  there  be  any 
deviation  from  classical  usage,  it  is  rather  in  the 
extension  than  in  the  restriction  of  its  use.*  Phil, 
iv.  10,  where  TO  vtrep  e/xo9  (fipovelv  stands  as  a  sort  of 
cognate  ace.  after  dve^aXere,  is  hardly  to  be  called  such 
an  extension :  it  is  simply  a  looseness  of  constr.  such 
as  a  writer  who  is  no  grammatical  purist,  but  is  at 
home  in  the  language  he  is  using,  will  allow  himself 
occasionally  but  rarely.  But  the  inf.  in  a  final,  con- 
secutive, or  epexegetical  sense  is  more  frequent,  and  is 
found  in  a  larger  class  of  cases  in  biblical  than  in 
classical  Greek.  No  one  would  be  surprised  at  a  use 
like  Matt.  ii.  2,  rjXOofjiev  Trpoo-KWTJorai,  or  Mark  iii.  14, 
Iva  a.7rocrTeAA.77  O.UTOVS  Krjpvcr<T€W  \  though  KTjpv^ovras  in 
the  latter  case  would  be  commoner,  and  Trpoer/cw^a-ovres 
in  the  former  not  uncommon.  But  would  any  classical 
author  have  written  a  sentence  like  Ex.  xxxii.  6,  ap. 

1  Cor.  X.  7,  CKaOiartv  o  Xao?  <£ayeiF  /cat  Tretv,  Koi  aveo- 
7rai£eii/ 1    or  Heb.    v.    5,    ov^    ecurrov   eSo^acrev 
dp^tepea?  or  ib.  vi.  10,  ov  yap  aSt/co?  6  ®eos  €7riAa$eo-$ai  ? 
So  Acts  v.  31  (if  TOV  be  omitted),  xv.  11,  2  Pet.  iii.  2. 
Or,  if   any  or   each   of  these  might  individually  be 
justified,  still  we  may  say  that  we  should  not  get  such 
extended  use  of  the  inf.  so  often  in  classical  writers. 
St.  Paul  is  especially  loose  in  this  use  of  it ;  see  e.g. 

2  Cor.  x.  13,  16,  xi.  2,  Col.  i.  22,  iv.  6.     Sometimes, 
on  the  other  hand,  an  inf.   of  this  kind,   even  one 
which  would  be  quite  regular,  and  in  harmony  with 
the  nature  of   the  governing   verb,    has   its   constr. 

*  We  should  mention,  however,  that  neither  infin.  nor  ptcp. 
is  used  in  the  N.  T.  with  &v. 


INFINITIVE  IN  FINAL  SENSE.       119 

helped  out  or  emphasised  by  the  use  of  wo-re  (Matt, 
xxvii.  1)  or  <os  (Luke  ix.  52,  Westcott  and  Hort ;  Acts 
xx.  24,  T.  R.,  Tisch.  etc).  The  cases  cited  are  the 
only  ones  where  ws  is  used  c.  inf.,  except  the  classical 
a)?  £7Tos  etTretV  of  Heb.  vii.  9  :  oWe,  of  course,  is  common 
— perhaps  as  common  as  in  other  Greek.  The  constr. 
of  OJO-T€  c.  imper.  is  perhaps  relatively  commoner; 
though  that  is  quite  classical. 

Where  the  inf.  has  a  distinctly  final  sense  after  a 
verb  which  is  not,  in  a  wide  sense,  causative,  it  is 
usual,  and  we  may  say  regular,  to  employ  with  it  the 
gen.  art.  TOV.  ("Ei/cKei/  TOV  c.  inf.  is  peculiar  to  2  Cor. 
vii.  12,  where  the  context  accounts  for  its  use.)  This 
constr.  is  pure  Greek,  but  is  far  more  frequent  in 
the  later  literary  language  than  in  the  classical.  In 
the  N.  T.  it  is  most  frequent  in  St.  Luke,  least  in  St. 
John,  doubtful  in  Mark  and  Apoc. ;  it  is  the  tendency 
of  the  T.  R.  to  introduce  it,  as  more  regular,  where 
the  apparently  oldest  texts  have  the  simple  inf. :  e.g. 
Mark  iv.  3,  Luke  xii.  42.  Exceptional  extensions 
of  its  use  are  found  in  Luke  xvii.  1,  Acts  x.  25,  Rev. 
xii.  7.  In  the  last,  it  is  impossible  to  represent  the 
constr.  as  regular,  and  useless  to  speculate  what 
regular  constr.  would  come  nearest  to  the  sense 
intended :  the  process  in  the  writer's  mind  is  appar- 
ently, "  There  was  war  in  heaven — Michael  and  his 
angels  making  war.  .  .  ."  or  "  so  that  they  made 
war."  In  Acts  x.  25  the  sense  is  much  the  same  as 
in  the  common  (and  especially  Lucan)  cyei/ero  rov  II. 
etcrcA^eu/,  on  which  see  p.  166. 

Where  an  inf.  with  the  art.  forms  the  subject  to  a 
sentence,,  the  predicate  is  usually  a  subst.  (e.g.  Phil, 
i.  22),  adj.  (Acts  x.  28),  or  pron.  (Matt.  xx.  23)— 


120  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

rarely  a  verb,  as  in  Matt.  xv.  20,  Rom.  vii.  18,  Phil, 
i.  29.  An  inf.  preceded  by  TOVTO  or  the  like  (distinguish 
Matt,  xx.,  Phil.  i.  11.  cc.  where  TOVTO  follows)  generally 
has  not  the  art.  when  it  is  subject  (Eph.  iii.  8,  1  Thess. 
iv.  3,  4 ;  but  in  ver.  6  TOVTO  has  been  left  so  far 
behind  that  the  art.  reappears ;  James  i.  27) ;  but 
has  when  predicate  (Rom.  xiv.  13,  2  Cor.  ii.  1  :  yet 
see  1  Cor.  vii.  37). 

While  the  use  of  the  inf.  with  the  proper  case  of 
the  art.  in  dependence  on  a  prep,  is  no  doubt  good 
Greek,  its  frequency  in  the  N.  T.  must  be  considered 
a  Hellenistic  feature.  Most  decidedly,  the  use  of  Iv 
TO)  c.  inf.  as  a  note  of  time  may  be  called  a  downright 
Hebraism,  being  a  literal  translation  of  a  common 
Hebrew  idiom :  for  this  see  p.  144.  With  this 
mainly  Lucan  use  we  may  co-ordinate  the  mainly 
Pauline  one  of  ets  (Rom.  iv.  18,  1  Cor.  x.  6  etc.),  and 
the  rarer  one  of  Trpos  c.  ace.  (Matt.  vi.  1,  2  Cor. 
iii.  13)  :  though  these  are  rather  Hellenistic  in  spirit 
than  Hebraistic  in  origin.  See  below,  on  the  various 
prepositions. 

The  tenses  of  the  inf.  are  as  a  rule  used  correctly, 
the  subtle  or  at  least  untranslatable  difference 
between  the  pres.  and  aor.  being  preserved  wherever 
the  sense  allows  it  to  be  perceptible.  But  perhaps 
less  use  is  made  of  the  fut.  inf.  than  in  classical 
writers.  It  is  never  used  in  the  N.  T.  with  /xe'XXeti/, 
except  in  the  one  phrase  /xe'XXetr  IVreo-^ai  in  Acts  (xi. 
28,  xxiv.  15,  xxvii.  10:  in  xxiii.  30  om.  //,eXXe«/,  and 
in  xxiv.  25  €creo-$tti),  never  with  eX7ri£etv,  except  in 
Acts  xxvi.  7  according  to  Cod.  B  only.  Me'XXcu/  (when 
not  used  absolutely)  almost  always  has  a  pres.,  but 
an  aor.  in  Rom.  viii.  18,  Gal.  iii.  23,  Rev.  iii.  2,  16, 


i] 


INFINITIVES  AND  PERIPHRASES.      121 

xii.  4  (not  ii.  10)*.  'EA7u£eu/  has  on  with  pres. 
(necessarily  for  the  sense)  in  Luke  xxiv.  21,  with 
fut.  in  Acts  xxiv.  26,  2  Cor.  i.  13,  xiii.  6,  Philem. 
22,  neither  having  classical  precedent,  though  there 
is  for  OTTO)?  c.  fut.  Its  usual  constr.  when  followed  by 
a  verb  (eXirtJeo'  eV,  ets,  or  ITTL  is  an  exclusively  biblical 
constr.)  is  c.  inf.  aor.,  as  most  editors  even  in  Acts 
xxvi.  7;  we  even  get  it  c.  perf.  inf.  in  2  Cor.  v.  11 — 
never  c.  ace.  et  inf.,  on  serving  to  replace  this.  So 
cTrayye'AAeiT^at  takes  an  aor.  inf.,  and  so  o/xWetv  in 
Acts  ii.  30,  but  a  fut.  in  Heb.  iii.  18  — not  without 
reason,  the  former  passage  being  "  He  swore  to "  do 
something,  the  latter  "  He  swore  that "  something 
should  happen,  not  directly  an  act  of  His. 

One  is  a  little  surprised,  therefore,  to  get  the  ace. 
and  inf.  after  verbs  similar  or  parallel  in  sense  to 
these,  even  where  the  subject  of  the  inf.  is  the  same 
as  of  the  principal  verb;  as  in  Luke  xx.  20,  Rom.  ii. 
19,  Rev.  ii.  9.  But  in  Phil.  iii.  13  we  see  that  the 
expression  of  the  subject  may  be  necessary  for  clear- 
ness, or  at  least  greatly  conducive  to  emphasis. 
In  Eph.  iv.  22  eStSa^T/Te  .  .  .  aTroOlo-Oai  v^as  is 
hardly  quite  the  same  as  cStS.  OLiroQio-Oau :  St.  Paul 
assumes  here  that  they  have  learnt  what  they  should 
do,  and  in  vv.  25  sqq.  bids  them  learn  to  do  it. 

Words  of  request  or  command  have  some  pecu- 
liarities of  constr.  KeXeuW  always  is  followed  by 
an  inf.,  as  in  pure  Greek  :  but  we  have  both  in 
SS.  Matthew  and  Luke  (the  only  N.  T.  writers  who 
use  this  word)  the  unclassical  constr.  with  the  inf. 
pass.,  the  subject  to  which,  of  course,  is  not  the 

*  The  force  of  the  aor.,  singularly,  is  more  distinctly  traceable 
in  the  Apoc.  than  in  St.  Paul. 


122  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

object  of  the  verb  (except  in  a  place  like  Matt.  xiv. 
19,  where  the  sense  is  really  med.).  See  Matt.  xiv. 
9,  xviii.  25,  xxvii.  58,  64,  Lukexviii.  40,  Acts  xii.  19, 
xxi.  33,  34,  xxii.  24,  xxiii.  3,  35,  xxv.  6,  17,  21.  So 
TTpooracrcreti/,  Acts  x.  48  :  irapayyiXXziv  never  has 
this  constr.  but  usually  the  regular  inf.  act.  :  it 
is  followed  however  by  Iva.  in  Mark  vi.  8,  2  Thess.  iii. 
12  (in  1  Tim.  v.  7  IVo,  does  not  depend  immediately 
on  the  verb),  and  in  2  Thess.  iii.  10  by  on  c.  imper. 
With  other  verbs  of  this  class,  Iva  or  OTTODS  is  often 
used  :  and  so  with  0e'A<o — see  c.  VI.  (c.). 

(e)  The  Participles. 

The  Greek  language  differs  from  and  surpasses 
most  others,  in  possessing  a  complete  set  of  participles, 
corresponding  to  almost  all  the  tenses  which  it  dis- 
tinguishes in  the  indie,  mood.  Of  this  richness  none 
has  been  lost  as  regards  variety  of  form,  and  not 
much  as  regards  freedom  of  usage,  in  the  st.ige 
of  the  language  represented  by  the  N".  T. :  though 
the  more  "  analytical "  character  of  the  language 
leads  to  participles  being  less  frequently  used,  at 
least  by  some  writers.  In  Luke  xxiv.  18,  John  vi. 
50,  vii.  4  etc.,  we  have  clauses  connected  by  KCU 
where  it  would  have  been  more  natural  to  a  Greek 
to  express  one  by  a  ptcp. ;  perhaps  the  same  may  be 
said  of  co-ordinate  imperatives,  as  in  John  i.  47. 

But  though  participles  may  be  less  used  than  in 
earlier  Greek,  when  used  they  are  used  in  the  same 
way.  Or  if  there  be  any  loss  of  accuracy  in  their 
use,  it  is,  as  in  the  case  of  the  innn.,  in  the  rarer 
and  more  limited  use  of  the  fut.,  not  in  the  loss 
of  the  distinction  between  pres.  and  aor.,  nor  (what- 


AORIST  AXD  PERFECT  PARTICIPLES.     123 

ever  we  may  think  is  the  case  in  the  indie.)  between 
aor.  and  perf .  This  last  distinction  *  perhaps  requires 
some  insistence,  because,  though  there  is  nothing- 
distinctive  in  the  N.  T.  usage  in  the  matter,  the  point 
is  one  which  English  scholars  are  apt  to  miss.  We 
translate  both  7rot?Jcras  and  TTCTTOL^KO^  by  "  having 
made "  :  we  hardly  ever  realise  that  in  so  doing  we 
are  obliterating  as  real  a  distinction  as  a  Latin  trans- 
lator who  uses  fed  both  for  cTrofyora  and  TreTrotrjKa. 

For  though  in  most  of  the  unaugmented  moods 
the  temporal  character  of  the  aor.  disappears,  and 
even  in  the  inf.  is  by  no  means  the  most  prominent 
or  important  feature  in  its  use,  in  the  ptcp.  the  sense 
is  as  strictly  temporal  as  in  the  indie.,  and  just  the 
samet  as  it  is  there.  We  show  our  sense  of  this, 
by  the  frequency  with  which  in  translation  we 
break  up  an  aor.  ptcp.  agreeing  with  the  subject 
of  the  sentence  either  into  a  relative  clause  or  into 
a  finite  verb  co-ordinated  by  a  con j .  with  the  principal 
one.  We  ought  to  recognise  that  the  temporal 
relation  is  exactly  the  same  when  the  ptcp.  agrees 
with  the  object  or  some  other  dependent  case,  though 
it  may  be  convenient  in  translation  to  represent 
it  otherwise,  or  may  not  be  worth  while  to  represent 
it  at  all.  Thus  Luke  x.  18  gives  the  sense  "Satan 
fell  like  lightning  :  I  was  there  beholding  : "  it  is 
neither  "  I  beheld  him  fall "  (etfcwpow  Trecreu/)  nor 
"  I  beheld  him  fallen  "  (10.  7re7rra>Kora),  still  less  of 
course  "  I  beheld  him  falling "  (10.  TriVroi/ra).  In 

*  A  suggestive  and  instructive  discussion  on  this  point, 
if  not  always  convincing,  is  to  be  found  in  a  paper  in  the 
JEvpoxitor  (2nd  Series,  vol.  iii.  pp.  161  sqq.)  by  Dr.  T.  S.  Evans. 

f  [Except  that  participles  express  time  only  in  relation  to 
the  verbs  on  which  they  depend.  ] 


124  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Acts  ix.  12,  Ananias  is  told  that  Saul  "  saw  a  man 
by  name  A.  :  the  man  in  his  vision  came  in  and  put 
his  hands  on  him."  If  it  be  worth  while  in  translation 
to  be  more  accurate  than  the  A.  V.,  which  substitutes 
present  participles  for  aorist,  we  might  put  a  relative 
clause,  as  in  xi.  13,  where  (so  far  as  there  is  a  right 
and  wrong  in  such  niceties)  the  A.  Y.  is  right  and 
the  11.  Y.  wrong  :  if  it  was  worth  while  to  make 
the  constr.  the  same  as  in  the  parallel  passage  x.  3, 
the  assimilation  ought  to  have  been  the  other  way. 
We  have  perf.  and  aor.  participles  set  side  by  side, 
each  with  its  proper  sense,  in  2  Cor.  xii.  21,  where 
the  Trpo  emphasises  the  force  of  the  perf.  ;  and  still 
more  pointedly  in  1  Pet,  ii.  10,  where  both  forms 
belong  to  the  same  verb,  and  where  the  choice  of 
tense  is  the  more  clearly  seen  to  be  deliberate,  be- 
cause there  is  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the 
LXX.  of  Hosea.  In  translating  either  passage,  we 
can  hardly  express  the  distinction  better  than  the 
A.  Y.  does  in  the  latter — representing  the  perf.  by 
(what  we  call)  a  plupf.,  and  the  aor.  by  a  perf.  : 
"  who  had  sinned,  and  have  not  repented,"  "  who  had 
not  obtained  mercy,  but  now  have"  But  if  we 
desire  to  analyse  what  was  in  the  Apostles'  mind 
that  led  them  to  vary  the  tense,  we  may  say  that 
they  speak  of  an  act  of  repentance,  an  act  of  God's 
mercy  (whether  the  latter  be  that  shown  in  redemp- 
tion or  in  conversion)  as  contrasted  with  the  state 
that  men  were  in  before  it.  An  angel  or  other 
watcher  of  those  to  whom  St.  Peter  writes  might 
have  said  of  their  former  state  OVK  ^Xe^vrat,  "they 
have  not  obtained  rneicy : "  of  their  entrance  into 
their  present  state,  Nw  ^Ao^rjo-ai/,  "  now  mercy  was 


AORIST  PARTICIPLE  AND  TIME.      125 

shown  to  them."  Similarly,  in  Gal.  iii.  13,  17, 
yevd/xei/05  and  yeyovws  are  correctly  distinguished  : 
they  are  correlative  respectively  to  the  historical 
tense  tfrjyopacrtv  and  the  pres.  d/cvpot  with  which 
they  are  associated.  And  (to  pass  from  cases  where 
both  tenses  are  used  to  a  case  where  one  is  used  and 
the  other  might  have  been)  in  Acts  xiii.  12  we  learn 
that  what  astonished  and  convinced  the  avrjp  orweros 
was  not  TO  ycvo/xerov  "  the  event,"  but  TO  yeyoi/os  "  the 
state  of  things  produced."  Elyrnas  was  not  only 
frightened  into  thinking  he  was  blinded,  but  was 
left  blind,  though  (as  we  understand)  only  a\pi  Kcupov. 
But  the  aor.  ptcp.,  though  not  perfect  in  sense, 
is  distinctly  preterite  :  in  pure  Greek,  when  it  is  used 
with  a  verb,  we  may  assume  that  the  action  expressed 
tjy  the  ptcp.  precedes  that  of  the  verb  in  the  order  of 
time  or  thought.  In  N.  T.  Greek  it  seems  that  the 
constr.  can  be  used  if  the  two  are  contemporary  some- 
time even  when,  if  we  resolved  it  into  two  co-ordinate 
verbs,  that  expressed  by  the  ptcp.  would  necessarily 
come  first.  In  Horn.  iv.  20  sq.,  Phil.  ii.  7,  the  adoring 
confidence,  the  assumption  cf  the  servant's  form, 
did  not  precede  the  vigorous  faith  or  the  /ceVoxris, 
but  was  what  it  consisted  in.  Perhaps  we  may  say 
the  same  of  Heb.  ii.  10,  translating  ayayovra  "when 
He  brought  :  "  —  "  in  bringing  "  would  necessarily  be 
ayoi'Ta  *  But  we  are  somewhat  surprised  at  Acts 
i  24,  Trpocreufa/x.ei'oi  etTrai/,  if  it  means  "  they  prayed 
and  said,"  so  as  to  be  equivalent  to  TTpoo-€v\6^€voi 
"  they  said  in  their  prayer  :  "  and  we  almost 


*  It  hardly  makes  any  differen.  c  as  to  the  difficulty  or  the 
proper  force  of  the  tense,  whether  we  connect  it  with  the 
subject  or  the  object  of  reX«cD<rat. 


126  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

refuse  to  believe  that  in  xxv.  13  St.  Luke  wrote 
Kar-rjvTrjo'av  .  .  .  do-Tracra/xevot  "  they  arrived  .  .  .  and 
saluted,"  though  MS.  evidence  proves  it,  if  there  be 
no  limit  to  what  it  can  prove.  Perhaps  we  may  say 
that  the  N.  T.  rule  is,  that  of  two  contemporary  acts 
in  past  time,  the  principal  is  expressed  by  the  verb, 
the  secondary  by  the  ptcp. 

The  rarity  of  the  fut.  ptcp.  in  the  N.  T.  may  be 
partly  due  to  its  simplicity  of  ethical  tone,  which 
gives  us  plenty  of  plain  narrative  of  the  past,  and 
not  a  little  direct  prediction  of  the  future,  but  rarely 
mentions  people's  sayings  or  doings  in  regard  to  future 
events — Matt.  vi.  34.*  Partly  however  it  must  be 
ascribed  to  the  existence  cf  words  which  mark  future 
time  but  are  not  technically  future  tenses — the 
Greek  //-e'AAwv,  and  the  Hellenistic  e/o^o/xevos  (see 
p.  100).  But  for  the  use  of  these  words,  it  would 
hardly  have  been  possible  that  we  should  find  eo-o/xcvov 
nowhere  but  Luke  xxii.  49,  yev^o-o/xevoi/  nowhere  but 
1  Cor.  xy.  37.  The  constr.  of  the  fut.  ptcp.  with  ws 
is  found  nowhere  but  Heb.  xiii.  17.  And  the  form  is 
nowhere  used  in  a  final  sense,  as  often  in  classical 
Greek,  except  a  few  times  in  the  Acts,  mostly  in  the 
last  chapters:  viii.  27,  xxiv.  11,  17,  xxv.  13-  if 
we  there  read  dcr7rao-o/x,ei/oi  (with  T.  B,.).  In  an 
earlier  writer  we  should  have  had  the  constr.  much 
oftener  even  in  that  book — certainly  in  many  places 
where  we  get  an  inf.  with  or  without  TOV,  probably  in 
some  where  we  have  a  pres.  ptcp.  E.g.  in  xv.  21  TOVS 
Kr)pv£ovras  would  have  seemed  more  natural  and  more 

*  From  this  point  of  view,  ffwavT-fiffovraL  in  its  context  in 
Acts  xx.  22  may  almost  be  called  an  exception  that  proves 
the  rule. 


PRESENT  PARTICIPLE  NEVER  FUTURE.    127 

elegant;  still  more  a-TrayyeXowra?,  ib.  ver.  27;  and  per- 
haps o-oAewrovres  /cat  Tapa^ovres  in  xvii.  13.  So  Rom.  xv. 
25,  Sta/covwv ;  where  indeed  the  progressive  sense  of 
the  pres.  Tropevo/xat  helps  a  little  to  the  treatment  of 
the  object  of  the  journey  as  already  in  execution. 

Except,  however,  in  the  case  of  words  of  this  sort  of 
progressive  meaning  (like  ep^o/x-evos),  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  any  tendency,  such  as  sometimes  has 
been  suspected,  to  use  the  pres.  ptcp.  in  a  sense 
approximating  to  the  fut.  Ot  o-w£d^€i/oi  and  01 
airoXXvpevoi  in  the  Acts  and  in  St.  Paul  are  "  those 
in  a  state  of  salvation  "  or  "  of  perdition,"  *  which 
states  begin  in  this  life  :  /3aAA.d/*ei/ov  in  Matt.  vi.  30 
is  not  "  which  will  be  cast,"  but  "  which  habitually  is 
growing  one  day  and  being  taken  for  fuel  the  next." 
One  hardly  likes  to  discuss  the  force  of  tKyyvvoptvov  in 
the  eucharistic  passages,  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  Mark  xiv. 
24,  Luke  xxii.  20  :  but  the  quod  effundetur  of  the 
Latin  versions  is  perhaps  rather  a  liturgical  tradition 
than  a  gloss  on  the  evangelical  text ;  in  St.  Matthew 
the  true  text  of  St.  Jerome's  version  appears  to  have 
the  pres.  The  pres.  is  certainly  used  by  him  for 
SiSo/xei/o7/  in  St.  Luke  in  the  verse  before ;  and  of  course 
in  1  Cor.  xi.  24  the  fut.  quod  pro  vobis  tradetur  is  as 
legitimate  a  gloss  as  the  pres.  /cAu)//,evoi/  in  the  Greek 
T.  R.  on  the  true  text,  TO  virlp  v^w. 

There  is  one  pres.  ptcp.  however,  of  which  it  is 
hardly  to  be  said  that  it  always  keeps  the  proper 
present,  or  rather  imperfect,  meaning  of  the  tense  : 
viz.  that  of  the  verb  substantive,  which  stands  almost 
alone  in  having  no  aor.  or  perf .  ptcp.  Of  course  no 
one  is  surprised  at  a  sentence  like  John  xi.  49,  which 
*  See  p.  35,  and  note  there. 


128  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

we  can  translate  quite  literally,  "  being  high  priest 
.  .  .,  he  prophesied;"  *his  high  priesthood  was 
present  at  the  time  of  the  prophecy,  though  TOU 
Iviavrov  tKtivov  tells  us,  if  it  needed  telling,  that  it 
was  past  at  the  time  of  writing.  But  in  2  Cor.  viii. 
9  it  would  be  too  much  to  think  that  the  Apostle 
speaks  (as  John  iii.  13  does,  si  vera  Z.)  of  — 

Verbum  supermini  prodiens, 
Ne'e  Patris  linquens  dexteram  : 

the  ptcp.  is  used  as  in  Eph.  ii.  13,  Col.  i.  21,  1  Tim. 
i.  13,  where  the  sense  of  <£j/  is  defined  by  the  use  of 
Trore  or  TTporepov.  One  may  doubt  whether  these  are 
quite  good  Greek,*  though  in  late  literary  Greek  at 
least  we  get  parallels  to  them  ;  of  John  ix.  25,  ri;<£A.os 
u)i/  apn  /SAeVco,  we  may  say  that  it  is  certainly  a 
straining  of  language.  It  is  difficult  however  to  see 
what  else  the  Evangelist  should  have  written,  in- 
tending, as  he  did,  exactly  the  sense  of  the  A.  V.  : 
whether  he  was  or  was  not  the  same  person  who 
wrote  o*£lv  KOL  6THj/  five  times  in  the  Apoc.,  he  knew 
that  here  as  there  yei/o/xevo?  would  give  quite  a  wrong 
sense.  Here  it  would  mean  "  whereas  I  ivas  born 
blind,"  which  is  not  what  he  wants  to  insist  on,  or 
else  "  whereas  I  once  ivas  blinded"  which  was  not  the 
fact  :  he  wants  a  strictly  preterimperfect  ptcp.,  and 
uses  the  nearest  approach  to  one  that  exists. 

It  is  different  from  an  improper  use  of  the  tense 
of  a  ptcp.,  when  the  ptcp.  becomes  so  far  adjectival, 
that  the  idea  of  tense  hardly  belongs  to  it.  'Ey@ScA.vy- 
in  Rev.  xxi.  8  is  just  equivalent  to 


*  Gal.  i.  23  no  doubt  is:  it  is  "our  former  persecutor" 
(Moultoifs  Winer),  the  pres.  being  used  to  mato  abstraction 
of  the  conception  of  time. 


OTHER    USES  OF  PARTICIPLES.       129 


in  Heb.  xii.  18  is  "  palpable,"  A.V. 
excellently  "  that  might  be  touched":  "but  in  both 
cases  the  tenses  used  are  correct,  giving  the  point  of 
view  from  the  word  started  on  its  way  to  become 
adjectival.  In  Gal.  ii.  11,  Kareyi/cocr/xeVos  is  hardly 
adjectival  :  the  sense  is  really  plupf.,  "had  condemned 
himself,  stood  self-condemned  "  (Moulton). 

We  note,  as  not  infrequent  in  St.  Paul  and  writers 
influenced  by  him,  a  tendency  to  use  participles 
instead  of  and  co-ordinately  with  finite  verbs  —  the 
sense  sometimes  being  that  of  an  indie.,  sometimes 
of  an  imper.  or  cohortative  subj.  :  possibly  sometimes 
the  ptcp.  was  preferred,  as  leaving  the  question  open 
whether  he  states  what  ought  to  be  or  what  was. 
For  instances,  more  or  less  certain,  see  Acts  xxiv.  5, 
Eom.  v.  11,  xii.  6-19,  2  Cor.  v.  6,  vii.  5,  1  Thess. 
ii.  11,  12,  Heb.  vii.  1,  xiii.  5,  1  Pet.  ii.  18,  iii. 
1,  8-9,  iv.  8-10.  Most  of  these,  however,  if  real 
irregularities,  are  rather  cases  of  anacoluthon,  or 
incomplete  structure,  than  of  extended  use  of  the 
ptcp.,  and  are  peculiarities  rather  of  the  writer's  style 
than  of  N.  T.  grammar. 

Different  from  this  are  the  cases  of  anacoluthon, 
where  a  transition  is  made  from  a  ptcp.  to  a  finite 
verb,  as  though  the  former  were  equivalent  to  a  rela- 
tive clause,  the  rel.  pron.  in  which  would  serve  as 
subj.  to  both  -John  i.  32,  2  Cor.  vi.  9,  Eph.  i.  20  aqq., 
Col.  i.  26,  Heb.  viii.  10.  (from  LXX.,  repeated  x.  16), 
2  John  2,  and  constantly  in  the  Apoc.  —  e.g.  ii.  2,  9, 
18.  1  Cor.  vii.  37  can  be  read  as  another  instance  : 
ib.  vii.  13  is  somewhat  analogous,  and  so  are  Luke 
xix.  2,  John  xv.  5. 

It  is  doubtful  if  the  ptcp.  is  used  proleptically  in 

9 


130    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

1  Tim.  v.  13.  The  easiest  sense  is  to  translate  as  the 
A.Y.,  but  it  is  harder  to  make  the  adj.  proleptic  than 
the  ptcp.  Certainly  in  classical  Greek  fjiavOdvovcri 
Treptepxo/xerat  cannot  mean  "  they  learn  to  go  about," 
and  what  it  could  mean  ("  They  learn  that  they  are 
going  about")  will  not  make  sense.  Buttmann  thinks 
the  words  as  they  stand  must  mean,  "idle  as  they  are, 
going  about  from  house  to  house,  they  learn  " — the 
Apostle  does  not  say  what.  But  this  gives  no  sense 
to  cfrX-vapoi  Kol  7T€pi€pyoL  in  the  next  clause :  so  we  are 
driven  back  to  the  A.  "V. 

There  remain  to  be  mentioned  two  uses  of  the 
ptcp.,  both  of  which  may,  in  very  different  degrees, 
be  called  Hebraisms.  The  conjunction  of  the  ptcp. 
with  the  finite  verb  for  emphasis,  common  in  the 
LXX.  as  a  representation  of  the  so-called  absolute 
infinitive  of  the  Hebrew,  is  confined  to  the  O.  T. 
quotations  in  Matt.  xiii.  14,  etc.,  Acts  vii.  34,  Heb. 
vi.  14,  unless  we  understand  Acts  v.  4  init.  as  an  in- 
stance :  though  we  get  an  equivalent  constr.  in  Luke 
xxii.  15,  John  iii.  29,  Acts  (iv.  17  T.  R.)  v.  28,  xxiii. 
14,  James  v.  17,  and  a  similar  though  not  formally 
identical  use  of  the  ptcp.  in  Acts  xiii.  45  T.  R. 

This  of  course  is  a  Hebraism  in  the  strictest  sense : 
it  is  otherwise  with  the  use  of  the  verb  substantive 
with  pres.  or  perf.  participles  (never  aor.  unless  in 
Luke  xxiii.  19)  as  a  periphrasis  for  certain  tenses. 
This  constr.,  most  frequent  in  St.  Luke,  corresponds 
to  one  found  in  Aramaic  and  late  Hebrew :  but  it 
was  native  to  the  Greek  language,  which  could  not 
express  otherwise  certain  perf.  and  plupf.  forms,  and 
presumably  would  have  become  commoner  as  time 
went  on,  without  any  but  native  Greek  influences; 


HEBRAISTIC  PERIPHRASES. 


131 


We  subjoin  a  table  of  instances  of  this  constr.,  as, 
from  the  arrangement  necessary  in  Bruder's  Concord- 
ance, it  is  rather  laborious  to  trace  it  there  through 
any  one  book.  And  (what  is  more  important)  he 
does  not  distinguish  cases  of  this  constr.  from  those 
where  a  ptcp.  with  the  art.  stands  as  subject  or 
predicate;  where  the  verb  subst.  is  used  absolutely, 
being  itself  the  primary  predicate,  and  the  ptcp.  being 
only  a  secondary  one;  or  where,  though  a  copula, 
it  has  another  predicate,  so  that  the  ptcp.  is  still 
secondary.  As  the  line  is  hard  to  draw  in  the  second 
and  sometimes  in  the  third  case,  we  admit  some 
instances  that  may  be  held  to  fall  under  them,  marked 
with  a  ?  (?  after  a  reference  means,  as  usual,  that  the 
reading  is  doubtful). 


COMBINED 
SOME        P 

OF  PEES. 


Part.  Pres. 


1  Luke  vi.  43. 


2  Cor.  ix.  12. 


Part.  Perf. 

?  Matt.  x.  26  =  Luke  xii.2. 

x.  30. 

?  xviii.  20. 

Luke  xii.  6. 
xx.  6. 
xxiii.  15. 
xxiv.  38. 
John   ii.    17, 
vi.  31,45,  x. 
34,  xii.  14, 
xx.  30. 
iii.  21,  28. 
?  Acts  v.  25.* 
xxi.  33. 
xxv.  10.* 
xxvi.  26. 
Rom.  xiii.  1. 
1  Cor.  iv.  8,  v.  2,  ?  viii.  5, 

xv.  19. 
?  2  Cor.  ii.  17. 

iv.  3  bis. 


*  Perfects  in  fdrm  but  presj  in  sense* 


132    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


COMBINED 
SOME      PJ 
OF  PREP. 

WITH'k 

SBSON  V          Part.  Pres. 

SUBJ.  J 

Gal.  iv.  24. 

Part.  PC 

[Eph.  v.  5  T.  B.] 
Col.  i.  6. 

Eph.  ii.  5,  8. 
Col.  iii.  1  * 

ii.  23. 

Heb.  vii.  20. 

?  James  i.  17. 

?                23. 

iii.  15. 

2  Pet.  iii.  7. 

Rev.  i.  18. 

1  John  iv.  12. 

PRES.  SUBJ,  Luke  xiv.  8. 

John  iii.  27  =  vi.  65. 
xvi.  24. 
xvii.  19. 
23. 

1  Cor.  i.  10. 

2  Cor.  i.  9. 

ix.  3. 
[James  ii.  15.  T.  R.]      James  v.  15. 

1  Johni.  4=2  John  12. 


IMPER. 

Matt.  v.  25. 

INFIN. 

Luke  ix.  18  =  xi.  1. 

PARTICIPLE 

Eph.  iv.  18. 

Col.  i.  21. 

FUT.  INDIC. 

Matt.  x.  22. 

Matt.  xvi.  19  bis. 

=  xxiv.  9  = 

=  xviii.  18  bis. 

Mark  xiii.  13  =  Luke 

xxi.  17. 

Matt.  xiii.  25. 

Luke  i.  20. 

v.  10. 

?  Luke  vi.  40. 

?         xvii.  35. 

?            xii.  52. 

xxi.  24. 

1  Cor.  xiv.  9. 

Heb.  ii.  13*  (fr.  LXX.). 

IMPERP. 

Matt.  vii.  29  =  Mark 

Matt,  ix.  36. 

INDIC. 

i.  22. 

xix.  22  =  Mark 
x.  22. 

?  xxiv.  38.  xxvi.  43. 

?  xxvii.  55. 

?  Mark  i.  13.  Mark  i.  6. 

39.  (?)  33. 

*  Perfects  in  form  but  pres.  in  sense. 


HEBRAISTIC  PERIPHRASES. 


133 


COMBINED   WITH  \  p       ,      p 

SOME        PERSON  V 


?          iv.  38. 

v.  5. 
?  11. 

[40  T.  R.] 
ix.  4. 
?          x.  32. 

x.  32  iterum. 
xiv.  4. 

?  49. 

xv.  43. 

?  Luke  i.  10. 

21. 

22. 

ii.  8. 

33. 

51. 

iv.  31  (cf. 
Matt.  vii.  29). 
?  33. 

38. 
44. 

v.  16. 
17. 

21). 

vi.  12. 
viii.  40. 
ix.  53. 
xi.  14. 
xiii.  10. 

11   [bis  T. 
R.] 
xiv.  1. 

XV.  1. 

xix.  47. 

?          xxi.  37. 

xxiii.  8. 

?          xxiii.  53. 
xxiv.  13. 


Part.  Perf . 
Mark  ?  ii.  6* 


?  ii.  6  * 

vi.  52. 

xiv.  40. 

xv.  46. 

Luke  i.  7. 


iv.  16. 
17. 


Matt.  v.  1* 


17* 

17  iterum 

18. 

viii.  2. 
ix.  32. 


xv.  24,32. 
xviii.  34. 

xxiii.  19.f 
?  38.  (?) 

51. 
55. 


*  Perfects  in  form  but  pres.  in  sense. 

t  Here,  and  here  alone,  the  best  texts  have  the  aor.  ptcp 
pXtjdets  instead  of  pej 


134    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


BOMB         PERSON  [  Part«   PrGS-  Part«    Pel>f' 

OF  IMPF.  INDIC.  )   T./T    j.j  •         or, 

Matt.  xxiv.  32. 
?  53 

?  John  i.  9. 
?  28. 

?  ii.  6. 

iii.  23.  John  iii.  24. 

?  x.  40. 

xi.  1. 

[41  T.  R.]  xii.  16. 

?  xiii.  23.  xiii.  5. 

xviii.  18,*  25.* 
John  xix.  11. 

19,20. 

[xx.  19  T.  R.] 
Acts  i.  10. 
13. 

14.  Acts  i.  17. 

ii.  5.  ii.  2  * 

42. 

viii.  1.  iv.  31. 

13.  viii.  16. 

28. 
ix.  9. 

28.  ix.  33. 

x.  24. 
30. 

?         xi.  5. 
xii.  5. 

6.  ?        xii.  12. 

20.  xiii.  48. 

xiv.  7.  xiv.  26. 

?       xvi.  12. 

xviii.  7.  xviii.  25. 

xix.  14(nonT.R.) 

Acts  xix.  32. 

xx.  8. 

Acts  xxi.  3.  13. 

xxii.  19.  xxi.  29. 

xxii.  20.* 

29. 

?  2  Cor.  v.  19. 

Gal.  i.  22.  Gal.  ii.  11. 

23.  iv.  3. 

Phil.  ii.  26.  ?  Eph.  ii.  12. 

Rev.  xvii.  4  (non  T.  R.). 

*  Perfects  in  form  but  pres.  in  sense. 


COMPOUND   PARTICIPIAL  PHRASES.     135 

In  many  of  these  cases  (those  with  perf .  pass,  partici- 
ples especially)  the  phrase  is  a  mere  periphrasis  for  a 
mood  or  tense  rarely  used  or  ill  sounding.  But  as  a 
rule  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  sense  of  permanent, 
or  habitual  action  implied  by  the  use  of  it :  note  e.g. 
Mark  ii.  18,  xiii.  25,  Luke  xxi.  24,  Gal.  i.  23,  of  cases 
with  the  pres.  ptcp.,  and  Matt.  x.  30,  Luke  xx.  6, 
Gal.  iv.  3,  with  the  perf.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  impf .  is  the  tense  oftenest  associated  with  both  par- 
ticiples :  and  the  resemblance  of  the  resulting  phrase 
with  the  perf.  to  the  Latin  compound  tenses  of  passive 
and  deponent  verbs  is  a  real  one.  But  that  of  the 
impf.  with  the  pres.  ptcp.  to  the  English  so-called 
impf.  must  not  be  exaggerated.  In  Mark  ii.  18  the 
sense  is  prob.  as  the  A.  V.,  not  "  were  keeping  a  fast,'7 
which  called  their  attention  to  the  diversity  of  practice : 
in  Matt.  vii.  29  and  parallels,  Luke  ii.  51,  we  see  that 
the  sense  is  of  habitual  action  rather  than  continued, 
and  that  the  English  idiom  would  be  quite  out  of  place. 

Besides  this  verbal  use  of  the  ptcp.  we  should 
notice  the  substantival  use  of  the  aor.  ptcp.  with  the 
art.,  which  we  get  substituted  for  a  verb,  e.g.  in  Luke 
viii.  45  compared  with  Mark  v.  30,  Luke  xx.  2  with 
Matt.  xxi.  23,  Markxi.  28.  See  also  Matt.  xxvi.  68  = 
Luke  xxii.  64,  John  v.  12,  15,  Acts  vii.  38,  ix.  21; 
though  here  there  is  more  intentional  insistence  on 
the  person  of  the  doer,  so  that  the  notion  is  less 
purely  verbal.  We  have  present  participles  used  like 
these  in  John  iv.  10,  37,  v.  32,  45,  xiv.  21,  xxi.  20; 
perhaps  one  or  two  more :  a  fut.  in  John  vi.  64,  and 
a  perf.  in  Luke  xxii.  28,  Acts  x.  42. 

We  may  conclude  by  noticing  the  curious  way  that 
the  ptcp.  is  made  to  agree  with  an  attracted  rel.  in 
Acts  xxvi.  22,  Rev.  xvii.  8. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

USES  AND  MEANINGS,    CHARACTERISTIC   OF   THE    N.    T.,    OF 
PARTICLES. 

(a)  Prepositions. 

A  S  already  mentioned  (p. 75-76),  the  N.  T.  language 
XA-  often  uses  prepositions  where  in  classical  Greek 
simple  cases  would  have  sufficed :  and  this  is  in  part 
through  the  influence  of  a  foreign  language,  but 
partly — perhaps  more  largely — from  an  internal  ten- 
dency in  the  Greek  language  itself,  which  might  be 
called  rather  a  development  than  a  corruption,  as  it 
would  lead  to  a  gain  in  accuracy  greater  than  any 
possible  loss  in  brevity  and  vigour.  But  we  perceive 
a  process  of  corruption  going  on  at  the  same  time  :  if 
prepositions  are  used  to  define  more  exactly  the  force 
of  the  cases  with  which  they  are  associated,  there  is  a 
counter  tendency  to  obscure  the  distinction  of  the 
prepositions  among  themselves,  and  between  their 
meaning  associated  with  various  cases.  In  modern 
Greek  ets  c.  ace.  has  almost  superseded  lv  c.  dat., 
while  retaining  its  old  classical  sense  too  :  /xera  for 
"  with  "  still  takes  a  gen.,  but  is  apocopated  into  /xe  c. 
ace. :  and  in  the  vulgar  language  all  prepositions  can 
be  used  with  that  case.*  In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is 
*  Gcldart's  Guide  to  Modern  Greek^  p.  247. 


PREPOSITIONS:   avd,  fort,  d™'.          137 

needless  to  look  for  classical  accuracy  in  the  use  of 
prepositions  and  cases  in  the  N.  T.,  when  the  simple 
and  natural  sense  of  a  passage  is  that  which  supposes 
the  tendency  dominant  in  later  times  to  have  already 
begun. 

Of  the  eighteen  Greek  prepositions  strictly  so  called, 
d//,(/>i  does  not  occur  in  the  N.  T.  except  in  two  or 
three  compounds.*  'Ava  is  rare,  being  confined  to  the 
phrase  ava  JJL€GTOV  (which  is  pure  but  late  Greek,  and 
receives  a  Hebraistic  extension  of  usage :  1  Cor.  vi.  5 
is  an  extreme  case),  and  the  distrib.  use  with  numerals. 
The  adverbial  use  c.  nom.,  which  we  get  in  Rev.  xxi. 
21,  ava  el?  fjcaoros,  though  late  seems  not  to  be  exclu- 
sively Hellenistic ;  but  there  is  no  classical  parallel  to 
this  exact  phrase. 

'Ai/rt  has  none  but  classical  uses :  but  we  note  as 
Hellenistic  (oftener  in  LXX.  than  N.  T.)  the  relative 
frequency  of  avO '  wi/ ;  though  it  is  quite  classical  both 
in  the  sense  of  "  because  "  (Luke  i.  20)  and  of  "  where- 
fore" (Luke  xii.  3).  'Avrt  TOV  c.  inf.  is  peculiar  to 
James  iv.  15.  The  remarkable  use  of  the  woid  in 
John  i.  16  is  clearly  explained  in  the  passage  of 
Philo  quoted  as  a  parallel  (I.  254,  De  Post.  Cain,  §  43.) 
Xaptrtts  aet  .  .  .  veas  avri  TraXatorepcoi/  .  .  .  eTrtScScocrt. 
The  earlier  parallel  alleged,  Theogn.  344,  is  doubtful : 
reading  Sofyv  (with  Bergck)  the  sense  will  be  the  plain 
one,  "  unless  I  give  pain  for  pain"  avenge  myself. 

'ATTO  gives  special  illustrations  of  the  double  ten- 
dency to  define  more  accurately  than  is  done  by  the 
use  of  simple  cases,  and  to  obscure  distinctions  be- 
tween prepositions.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  used 

*  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  rare  use  of  ws  as  a 
prep,  does  not  occur  at  all. 


138    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

where  in  earlier  Greek  the  simple  gen.  would  have 
been  held  to  suffice :  on  the  other,  it  is  often  used 
interchangeably  with  e/c,  where  there  ought  to  be  a 
distinction  between  them.  Thus  we  get  atfwos  airo  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  24,  lo-OUw  diro,  xv.  27  =  Mark  vii.  28, 
SiSdrai  aTrd,  Luke  xx.  10:  bat  side  by  side  with  the 
two  last  phrases  we  have  StS.  e£  in  Matt.  xxv.  8, 
1  John  iv.  13,  and  <£ayeu/  ef  in  John  vi.  26,  50,  51, 
Rev.  ii.  7  (cf.  ver.  17,  T.  R).  Here  no  doubt,  if  a  prep, 
was  to  be  used  instead  of  the  simple  partitive  gen., 
either  was  equally  appropriate ;  but  it  is  hardly  so  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  2 1 ,  TWO.  .  .  .  O.TTO  rcov  Svo  by  the  side  of  xxi. 
31,  TIS  €/<  rcov  Svo :  here  in  good  Greek  one  would  say 

Simply    TOT/TO)!/    TTOTCpOS    .     .     .  y    7TOT€pOV    TOLV    SuOtV    .     .     .   ', 

but  if  any  prep,  be  used  it  should  surely  be  e/c.  In 
Luke  ii.  4  there  is  a  real  distinction  between  air 6 
and  €K — the  first  telling  the  direction  from  which  he 
came,  the  second  his  starting-point :  though  we  might 
have  had  them  reversed,  with  the  sense  that  He 
came  from  Nazareth  out  of  Galilee.  But  in  John 
xi.  1,  Acts  xxiii.  34,  the  two  stand  side  by  side  with 
apparently  identical  meanings. 

The  relation  of  faro  to  VTTO,  on  the  other  hand, 
seems  not  to  be  other  than  is  found  in  classical 
Greek  (e.g.  Thuc.  I.  xvii.  1,  III.  Ixxxii.  13,  IY.  cxv. 
2)  :  often,  in  the  N.  T.  as  elsewhere,  the  one  is  a  v.  1. 
for  the  other.  In  James  i.  13  the  sense  is  "  My 
temptation  comes  from  God  "  :  in  v.  4  the  sense  "  on 
your  part  "  is  not  inappropriate  :  even  in  Acts  ii.  22 
one  can  feel  if  not  express  the  shade  of  meaning 
given.  Neither  in  Luke  vii.  35  nor  xvii.  25  does  it 
appear  that  the  notion  is  exactly  tliat  of  agency  : 
and  in  vi.  18  (if  we  read  d?ro  TTV.)  we  may  perhaps 


PREPOSITIONS:   fat,  8wL  139 

suspect  a  sort  of  zeugma,  the  constr.  being  half  d-Tro 
TTvev/xaTtm/  ax.  e^epaTreuoi/TO,  like  laOijvai  OLTTO  TOJV  vocrcoi/ 
just  before.  Rev.  xii.  6  is  perhaps  the  only  place 
where  the  difference  from  v6  really  vanishes. 

But  there  is  an  extension  of  the  use  of  oVo,  where 
it  is  used  of  cause,  like  the  Latin  prce.  There  is 
nothing  to  surprise  one  in  a  use  like  those  in  Matt, 
xiv.  26,  Acts  xii.  14,  or  again  xx.  9  :  but  Matt,  xviii. 
7  is  plainly  Hellenistic  :  and  the  use  in  Luke  xix.  3, 
John  xxi.  6,  Acts  xxii.  11  seems  not  to  be  quite  good 
Greek.*  Winer  seems  to  think  that  this  last  exten- 
sion of  meaning  only  occurs  in  "  negative  combina- 
tions," i.e.  where  cwro  indicates  what  prevents  a  thing 
being  done,  not  what  causes  it. 

The  constr.  to  express  local  distance  (John  xi.  18, 
etc.),  is  late  but  pure  Greek :  in  a  better  age  the 
measure  of  distance  comes  in  the  ace.  before  OTTO,  so 
that  that  would  run  ws  crraSiovs  te'  ac/>'  'Ie/o.  Perhaps 
the  word,  though  bearing  quite  its  commonest  sense, 
is  used  with  rather  unusual  freedom  of  constr.  in 
Acts  xvi.  33,  Horn.  ix.  3,  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  Col.  ii.  20 
(where  ajroOavtlv  awo  seems  to  be  a  clearer  equivalent 
to  the  aTroOaveiv  c.  dat.  of  Rom.  vi.  2  etc.).  If  we 
decline  to  rank  Heb.  v.  7  with  these,  it  is  on  account 
of  the  limitations  of  N.  T.  use  of  e^Xa^eta,  not  of  aVo. 

Ata  c.  gen.  in  a  local  sense  is  used  of  extension  or 
motion  through,  not  of  the  limits  of  intervals.  Of 
time,  on  the  contrary,  it  has  the  latter  sense  in  Mark 
ii.  1,  Acts  xxiv.  17,  Gal.  ii.  1  :  so  Matt.  xxvi.  61  = 
Mark  xiv.  58,  "  at  an  interval  of  three  days,"  i.e. 

*  In   Plut.   Timol.  c.  27  we  have  ffvvoirrov  ovdev  3\v  OLTTO  r&v 
Tro\€/jLiwv  :  but  further  on  in  the  same  c.  read  viro  T&V  ap 
.  .  .  els  "Xjeipas  eXdelv  rots  KapXT/Scw'ocs  ov 


140    LANGUAGE  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

practically  "  after  three  days " ;  equivalent  to  the  tv 
rpioiv  fjjjLtpais  of  Matt,  xxvii.  40=Mark  xv.  29,  John 
ii.  19.*  It  also  is  used  of  time  passed  through,  in 
Luke  v.  5,  Heb.  ii.  15,  and  so  no  doubt  in  Acts  i.  3  : 
if  it  be  the  fact  that  the  Lord  did  not  stay  with  the 
Apostles  through  the  forty  days,  but  was  seen  by  them 
at  intervals  during  forty  days,  that  fact  is  inferred 
from  the  Gospels,  not  stated  in  this  place.  But  this 
use  is  comparatively  rare,  except  in  almost  adverbial 
phrases — Sta  VVKTOS  "  by  night "  four  times  in  Acts  (v. 
19,  xvi.  9,  xvii.  10,  xxiii.  31)  and  8ia  Trai/ros  constantly. 
One  knows  not  whether  to  refer  to  this  sense  of 
"  passing  through,"  or  to  the  instrumental  one,  the 
exclusively  Pauline  use  of  8ta  to  denote  the  state  in 
which  a  thing  is  done:  Rom.  iv.  11,  xiv.  20,  2  Cor. 
ii.  4  :  in  iii.  11  we  see  that  810,  80^779  must  be  almost 
but  not  quite  equivalent  to  ei/  SO^T/.  Rom.  viii.  25, 
2  Cor.  v.  10  (hardly  7),  Gal.  v.  13,  seem  to  bridge  the 
interval  between  this  use  and  the  instrumental :  a 
few  passages,  like  Rom.  ii.  27,  may  be  assigned  to 
either  :  but  in  Heb.  ix.  12,  1  John  v.  6,  it  seems 
quite  a  mistake  to  bring  in  this  sense.  It  is  different 
from  the  Attic  use  of  8ta  SI'KT/S,  8ta  p-a^s  teVat,  8t'  opyr/s 
e^eiF,  etc.,  "  to  come  into  "  or  "  to  have  some  one  in, 
a  relation  of  ...  ,"  to  have  that  as  the  medium 
through  which  you  deal  with  him  :  but  8ta  trevOovs  TO 
y%)as  Siayetv  in  Xen.  Cyr.  IV.  vi.  6  comes  very  near 
to  it.  It  is  a  question  whether  we  can  give  this 
meaning  to  8t'  ato-$eVeiav  in  Gal.  iv.  13  :  it  certainly 
seems  a  little  rash  to  get,  as  modern  commentators  do, 
an  interesting  biographical  fact  out  of  a  grammatical 

*  There  is  some  authority  in  St.  Mark,  and  rather  better  in 
St.  John,  for  the  omission  of  eV. 


PREPOSITIONS:   Sicu  141 

refinement  of  this  sort,  and  say  that  it  must  mean 
that  St.  Paul  was  detained  in  Galatia  by  illness. 
We  need  not  dwell  on  the  strictly  instrumental  sense 
of  the  word,  which  is  often  as  clearly  and  definitely 
used  as  in  Aristotle :  but  we  must  remember  that, 
though  the  N".  T,  writers  know  what  this  usage  is, 
they  are  less  careful  than  Aristotle  to  use  words  with 
technical  accuracy,  and  less  apt  to  assume  (of  course 
they  have  better  reason  for  not  assuming)  that  words 
are  adequate  to  the  accurate  expression  of  their 
meaning.  Thus  in  Gal.  i.  1  we  get  OLTTO  and  8ia 
distinguished,  and  expect,  but  do  not  get,  OLTTO  ®Y 
distinguished  from  Sia  lY  XY:  in  iv.  7  the  T.  R. 
actually  glosses  ©Y~ Sia  XY.  for  oia  ®Y  of  the  primitive 
text.  In  Ueb.  ii.  10  Si*  ov  ra  Trdvra  KOL  Si*  ov  TO.  irdvra 
refers  to  a  different  Person  from  the  Si'  ov  of  i.  2,  the 
Si'  avrov  of  John  i.  3,  or  the  Si'  avrov  KOLL  €15  avrov  of 
Col.  i.  16,  but  in  all  probability  the  same  as  e£  avrov 
Kol  01  avrov  KCU  eis  avrov  in  Rom.  xi.  36.  We  should 
here  notice  in  passing  the  Hebraistic  use  of  Sio,  x€tpos, 
o.  oro/xaTo?,  the  former  at  least  hardly  being  more 
than  equivalent  to  the  simple  8ia. 

Aia  c.  ace.  is  used  just  as  in  classical  Greek — 
sometimes  meaning  "for"  of  the  final  cause,  some- 
times "  because  of  "  in  a  more  general  sense  :  which 
may  approximate  to,  or  rather  be  exchangeable  with 
8ia  c.  gen.  Thus  in  John  xv.  3  Sia  rov  \6yov  is 
"  because  of  the  word,"  not  "  by  the  word  :  "  but 
if  they  were  clean  because  of  it,  the  phrase  proves 
that  they  must  have  been  cleansed  by  it.  In  the 
Apoc.  we  should  not  be  surprised  if  there  were  a 
confusion  between  the  cases :  but  in  fact  iv.  1 1  is 
"for  Thy  will"  (A.  V,  is  an  excellent  gloss),  xiii. 


142    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

14  "by  reason  of  the  signs:"  even  xii.  11  ascribes 
the  victors'  strength  to  the  cause  they  fought  for,  not 
to  the  arms  they  fought  with.  In  Luke  xvii.  11,  but 
nowhere  else,  Sta  in  a  local  sense  has  the  ace.,  if,  with 
the  best  critical  editors,  we  feel  bound  to  bow  to  the 
consent  of  B  K  L. — supported,  in  some  measure,  by 
two  good  groups  of  cursives.  If  this  be  right,  the 
constr.  is  an  inadvertence,  rather  than  a  revival  of  a 
classical  but  only  poetical  use. 

Ets  and  er/  are  best  considered  in  connection  with 
each  other,  being  originally  connected  etymologically, 
and  tending,  as  they  do,  to  approximate  more  in  usage 
in  the  late  language.  The  approximation  is  however 
on  one  side  only  :  as  in  modern  Greek  ets  can  be  used 
for  "  in,"  but  ei/  cannot  be  used  for  "  into,"  so  in  N.  T. 
Greek  there  is,  to  say  the  least,  better  reason  to  doubt 
whether  the  proper  sense  of  ets  is  remembered  than 
whether  that  of  lv  is,  in  the  cases  where  they  appear 
to  be  "  used  for  "  each  other.  Probably  on  the  whole, 
each  does  retain  something  of  its  proper  form.  Ets, 
when  immediately  depending  on  a  verb  of  action  done 
in  a  place,  is  sometimes  actually  explained  by  a  verb 
of  motion  standing  co-ordinately  with  that  on  which 
it  depends,  so  that  the  sense  of  the  one  colours  the 
other,  e.g.  Luke  xxi.  37,  where  yvXi&ro  as  belong 
together,  but  the  sense  is  e^c/o^o/xcvos  ets  .  .  .  rjvXi^ro 
&  TO)  opei.  So  Matt.  ii.  23,  iv.  13,  and  from  this  the 
transition  is  easy  to  Heb.  xi.  9,  and  not  difficult  even 
to  Acts  viii.  40.  Acts  (xviii.  21  T.  R)  xxi.  13, 
similarly  may  be  held  to  imply  a  journey,  though 
speaking  only  of  what  is  to  be  done  at  its  end.  We 
should  certainly  read  Krjpvo-o-w  ets  T&S  o-tu/ctyioyas  in 
Mark  L  39,  and  almost  certainly  in  Luke  iv*  44  :  in 


PREPOSITIONS:   efc,   eV.  143 

the  former  passage  the  best  text  has  wXOtv  K.,  in 
the  other  we  may,  if  we  please,  say  that  the  sense 
"  preaching  to  the  synagogues  "  is  included.  In  John 
ix.  7  we  may  either  look  to  viraye.  as  explaining  eis, 
or  may  say  that,  in  washing,  he  would  dip  his  hand, 
perhaps  his  face  :  into  the  pool,  cf.  Mark  i.  9.  But  it  is 
best  not  to  look  for  far-fetched  justifications  in  places 
like  Mark  xiii.  9,  Acts  xix.  22,  xxv.  4;  as  it  is 
certain  that  in  late  writers  (Lilian  is  the  earliest 
quoted)  ets  means  no  more  than  "in,"  we  are  prepared 
to  admit  that  it  may  be  so  in  the  N.  T.  See  esp. 
the  parallel  passages  Matt.  xxiv.  18  eV  ro>  aypw, 
Mark  xiii.  16  ei?  rov  dypoV. 

We  have  one  use  of  et?  which  may  fairly  be  called 
Hebraistic,  the  constr.  ytVeo-^at  eis  n  which  we  get  in 
Luke  xiii.  19.  That  this  is  its  nature  is  proved  by  the 
fact,  that  while  it  is  common  in  the  Apoc.  (viii.  11 
etc.)  and  in  quotations  from  the  0.  T.  (Matt.  xxi.  42 
and  many  parallels,  Heb.  i.  5  etc.),  it  is  decidedly  rare 
elsewhere.  Yet  the  constr.  had  roots  in  the  Greek 
language  itself.  Apart  from  the  plainly  Hebraic 
passages,  Luke  1.  c.  is  perhaps  the  only  one  where  we 
feel  the  phrase  to  be  Hebraistic.  Twea-0ai  €is  ovSeV 
(Acts  v.  36),  or  even  et?  KCVOV  (1  Thess.  iii.  5),  seem 
quite  possible  Greek,  and  John  xvi.  20  17  \virrj  v^w 
et?  xaP^v  yei/T/crerat,  has  a  perfect  precedent  in  Theogn. 
162,  ots  TO  KOLKOV  SOKCOV  yiyi/€Teu  ets  ayaOov.  It  is  pos- 
sible too  that  this  use  of  ets  was  commended  to  late 
generations  of  Greek-speaking  people  by  its  analogy 
with  the  Latin  double  dat.  :  2  Sam.  vii.  14  ap.  Heb. 
i.  5  is  exactly  ille  mihifilio  erit. 

JEv  has  a  wider  range  of  non-classical  and  mainly 
Hebraistic  use.  Both  cfc  and  6/,  it  is  true,  are  used 


144    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

often  to  express  spiritual  relations,  e.g.  in  the  phrases 
/BaTTTi&iv  €t5,  eV  (Acts  x.  48),  or  eVt  (ii.  38  si  vera  l.\ 
7n<TT€v€iv  €is,  once  or  twice  (Mark  i.  15  :  John  iii. 
15  is  ambiguous)  Trtcrrcveti/  ev,  eV  Xptcrro),  eV  rw  ovo/xart. 
But  these  are  (p.  74)  extra-grammatical  points  :  as  a 
rule,  they  are  only  applications  in  a  special  relation 
of  a  familiar  use  of  the  prep.,  though  in  some  of  them 
(the  last  especially)  we  may  trace  a  Hebraistic  element. 
More  necessary  for  us  to  notice  are  the  use  of  eV  ro> 
c.  inf.,  not  only  where  it  means  "  in  the  course  of  " 
the  action  (which  would  be  classical)  but  where  it  is 
"  at  the  moment "  of  it,  afia  r<3.  (Notice  this  specially 
Lucan  constr.  in  Luke  ix.  36,  where  the  Greek  aor. 
is  used  correctly,  denning  the  use  of  the  prep,  as  not 
pure  Greek.) 

Still  further  from  classical  use  is  the  instrumental  eV, 
where  in  pure  Greek  we  should  have  the  simple  dat.,* 
common  esp.  in  the  Apoc.  (e.g.  ii.  16  etc.),  but  not 
very  rare  in  the  Gospels  (Matt.  v.  13  etc.).  This 
shades  off,  no  doubt,  into  the  local  meaning — e.g. 
/?a7TTi£o>  iv  v&m,  Matt.  iii.  11  (which  well  illustrates 
one  of  the  starting-points  of  a  spiritual  use  of  the 
prep. — see  the  end  of  the  verse),  Heb.  ix.  22 ;  and, 
where  the  local  meaning  remains,  we  get  eV  even  in 
classical  Greek  with  an  instrumental  sense  at  least 
suggested.  'Ei/  of  price  (Rev.  v.  9,  and  prob.  i.  5, 
reading  Xvcravrt,  as  we  should)  is  only  a  special  case 
of  this  use :  lv  x€LP^  ^^e  ^  X€LP°*  noticed  above,  is 
a  still  more  Hebraic  form  of  it.  Akin  to  it,  but  not 
quite  identical,  is  the  sense  of  accompaniment,  1  Cor. 
iv.  21,  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  Heb.  ix.  25.  This  may  be 

*  [This  idiom  is  an  extension  beyond  all  classical  precedent 
of  a  construction  as  old  as  Homer.] 


PREPOSITIONS:   eV,   #.  145 

illustrated  by  the  physical*  use  of  the  word  of  gar- 
ments, Matt.  vii.  15  etc.;  or  we  may  compare  Luke 
idv.  31,  which  we  must  translate  "  toit/i  10,000,"  with 
Enoch  ap.  Jud.  14;  which  quite  possibly  means 
"among."  In  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  xiv.  11  the  sense  seems 
to  be  apucl  vos,  apud  me:  ib.  iv.  6,  ix.  15,  "in  my 
case,"  which  is  quite  classical. 

A  Hebraistic  use,  apparently  independent  of  the 
instrumental,  is  that  of  o//Weti/  ets  or  «/,  Matt.  v.  35, 
.34-6,  xxiii.  16  sqq. ;  with  which  cf.  oftoXoyetv  ei/  in 
Matt.  x.  32,  Luke  xii.  8. 

'E£  and  atro  are,  as  noted  above,  used  more  promis- 
cuously in  the  N.  T.  than  they  should  be :  it  is 
noticeable  how  often  they  appear  as  variant  readings. 
In  Matt.  vii.  4  the  e/c  of  the  critical  texts  is,  one  would 
have  thought,  obviously  more  appropriate  than  the  OLTTO 
of  the  T.  R. :  in  xvii.  9  the  reverse  is  the  case :  in  Mark 
xvi.  3  (XTTO  is  old,  and  seems  more  appropriate,  but  c/c  is 
better  attested,  and  has  remained  more  popular. 

The  thoroughly  causal  sense  of  IK,  rare  but  not 
unknown  in  classical  Greek,  is  in  the  N.  T.  confined 
to  St.  John's  writings— perhaps  indeed  to  the  Apoc. 
(viii.  13,  xvi.  10,  11),  but  many  so  take  Ev.  vi.  66, 
xix.  12,  though  in  the  former  place  at  least  the 
temporal  meaning  seems  more  natural.  The  only 
important  use  of  ef  that  can  be  considered  Hellenistic 
is  an  extension  of  what  may  be  called  its  partitive 
use.  John  iii.  1,  vii.  48,  IK  rdw  ^aptcratW,  dp^oi/rwv, 
do  not  go  beyond  IK  rwv  Swaftcww  ewriV,  "  are  of  the 
number  of  the  powerful,"  in  Plat.  Gorg.  525  e:  but 
in  xvi.  17,  perhaps  iii.  25,  we  feel  the  constr.  to  be 
harsh  :  even  Ep.  II.  4,  Rev.  ii.  10,  seem  to  give  a 
non-Hellenic  force  to  the  prep.  And  often  it  seems 

10 


146   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  add  nothing  to  the  force  of  the  simple  gen.  We 
have  already  noticed  that  OLTTO  is  used  interchangeably 
with  e£  in  this  sense  among  others. 

Perhaps  it  is  a  development  from  Greek  germs, 
but  it  is  hardly  a  Greek  usage,  when  we  have  c£  used 
for  "at  the  rate  of  .  .  .  "  (Matt.  xx.  2,  cf.  the  simple 
gen.  in  ver.  13),  or  "  at  the  price  of"  (ib.  xxvii.  7, 
Acts  i.  18 :  so  still  more  directly  Ep.  Jer.  [Bar.  vi.] 
24).  The  mental  process  leading  to  this  use  is  illus- 
trated by  Lukexvi.  9,  where  the  mammon  is  conceived 
almost  as  raw  material,  at  any  rate  as  means  and 
starting-point,  for  "  making  friends :  "  also  by  com- 
paring the  use  of  ef  in  Matt,  xxvii.  7  with  that  of  ets 
(as  apparently  understood  by  the  Evangelist)  in  ver. 
10  :  they  get  the  field  out  of  the  money,  by  a  process 
correlative  to  that  of  (as  we  say)  sinking  the  money 
in  the  field. 

Unique  is  the  use  of  VIKOLV  e£  in  Rev.  xv.  2.  Some 
suggest  that  it  may  be  a  Latinism,  equivalent  to 
triumpkare  de,  or  still  more  exactly  to  the  victoriam 
ferre  ex  of  Liv.  VIII.  viii.  15.  But  perhaps  the 
sense  is  more  comparable  with  the  N.  T.  construc- 
tions, themselves  natural  enough,  of  /xeravoeu/  e*, 
<roj£ecr0(u  e£,  and  the  like :  the  victors  are  conceived 
as  fighting  their  way  clear  from  the  enemy. 

'ETTI  differs  less  than  most  prepositions  in  its  sense 
when  joined  with  different  cases  :  and  in  the  N.  T.  we 
meet  with  remarkably  direct  proof  of  the  conscious- 
ness that,  in  its  primary  local  sense  of  "  upon,"  it  is 
almost  a  matter  of  indifference  what  case  is  joined 
with  it.  For  we  get  it  joined  with  different  cases 
in  the  same  or  in  adjacent  or  parallel  sentences,  to 
express  obviously  identical  relations — Matt.  xix.  28, 


PREPOSITIONS:   IwL  147 

Luke  xii.  53,  Acts  v.  9,  23  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  33  =  Mark 
xiii.  29,  Eev.  iii.  20),  xxvii.  44,  Rev.  iv.  2,  9,  10, 
xiv.  9,  xix.  11,  14  (18),  20,  etc.  :  or  compare  the 
best  texts  of  Matt.  xxiv.  2  =  Mark  xiii.  2  with  Luke 
xxi.  6.  But  it  has  special  meanings  with  each  case  : 
all  these  are  found  in  classical  Greek,  and  are  not 
confused  in  the  N.  T.,  except  where  (as  in  Luke  1.  c.) 
either  case  may  correctly  be  used  in  the  sense  intended  : 
e.g.  in  2  Tim.  ii.  14  (true  text),  ITT  ov&v  ^pr^o-i^ov  "  to 
no  useful  end,"  is  correctly  distinguished  from  Itri 
Ka.Ta<TTpo(j>fj  "so  as  to  overthrow."  In  Phil.  ii.  27, 
however,  the  Xvirrjv  l-rrl  Xvirr]  of  the  T.  R.  is  better 
Greek  than  Iwl  XVTTTJV  of  the  critical  text.  Perhaps 
the  chief  divergence  from  classical  use  with  this 
prep,  is,  that  it  has  apparently  ceased  to  bear  the 
sense  "  towards  "  c.  gen.  And  the  use  is  post-classical 
of  eTTi  c.  ace.  to  indicate  a  point  of  time,  as  it  apparently 
does  in  Luke  x.  35,  Acts  iv.  5,  perh.  iii.  1  (not  Mark 
xv.  1,  true  text).  BomAeveti/  em  c.  ace.,  "to  reign 
over"  (Luke  i.  33,  xix.  14,  27,  Rom.  v.  14),  is  not 
a  classical  constr.,  though  the-  prep,  has  in  classics 
the  sense  implied.  In  Matt.  ii.  22  the  best  text  has 
the  simple  gen.  after  /^omAeueti/,  which  is  classical, 
instead  of  /3.  ITTL  c.  gen.  of  the  T.  R.  :  in  Rev.  v.  10 
€7n  rfjs  y?}?  prob.  has  a  merely  local  sense,  and  does 
not  depend  on  (3.  We  notice  that,  while  twl  TO> 
ovopan  (in  its  ^  distinctive  Biblical  sense)  is  apparently 
interchangeable  with  iv  TO>  oV.  (see  Acts  iv.  10,  17), 
we  do  not  get  CTTI  TO  ovofjia  to  correspond  with  ets  TO  6'y. 
— though  iv  and  eis  are  as  nearly  synonymous  as  in 
Acts  x.  48,  xix.  5.  But  we  get  Trio-Teveti/  eVt  c.  dat. 
in  1  Tim.  i.  16,  as  well  as  in  the  quotation  in  Rom. 
ix.  33,  x.  11 — where  it  is  worth  remembering  that 


148   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  Vatican  text  of  the  LXX.  omits  ITT  curro) — ,  by  the 
side  of  the  commoner  TT.  ITU  c.  ace.  In  Luke  xxiv.  25 
the  constr.  is  no  doubt  different,  "  to  believe  in  view 
of"  .  .  . :  Rom.  iv.  16  is  even  plainer.  Notice  the 
frequency  of  this  phrase  ITT  oV7rt8i  (or  €</>'  eA.?r.). 

Kara  is  used  upon  the  same  lines  as  in  classical 
Greek,  but  its  use  has  in  some  respects  become  more 
vague  as  well  as  more  extensive.  In  some  respects, 
the  change  is  less  than  one  might  expect.  In  the 
best  ages,  the  quasi-adverbial  phrases  /ca0'  oXou  and 
Kara  TTCIVTOS  were  the  only  ones  in  which  Kara  c.  gen. 
seemed  to  have  the  sense  "  throughout,"  as  c.  ace.  : 
but  in  Poly  bins  (I.  xvii.  10,  III.  xix.  7,  Ixxvi.  10)  one 
constr.  seems  quite  equivalent  to  the  other.  Now  in 
the  N.  T.  we  never  get  the  gen.  in  this  sense,  except 
in  St.  Luke  (iv.  14,  xxiii.  5,  Acts  ix.  31,  42,  x.  37), 
and  in  him  always  with  the  adj.  0X05;  the  phrase 
seeming  to  "  sound  right,"  because  the  adv.  KaOoXov 
(also  peculiar  to  him  in  the  N.  T.,  Acts  iv.  18)  had 
become  so  common  since  Aristotle. 

'O/xWvat  Kara  ru/os  is  quite  classical,  but  is  used  of 
the  objects  sworn  on,  or  pledged  to  execration  by  the 
oath,  not  of  the  God  sworn  by,  as  in  Matt.  xxvi.  63, 
Heb.  vi.  13,  16.  In  James  v.  12  we  have  the  classical 
ojjivvtLv  c.  ace.  :  in  the  Gospels,  as  already  noted,  the 
Hebraistic  6.  Iv  or  et?.  'Ey/cttA.eu/  Kara  in  Rom.  viii. 
33  is  a  familiar  classical  sense  of  the  prep.,  but  the 
classical  constr.  of  the  verb  is  c.  dat.,  as  Acts  xix.  38, 
xxiii.  28. 

Kara  c.  ace.  perhaps  goes  a  little  beyond  classical 
precedent  in  its  local  use  :  any  Greek  writer  might 
have  written  Kara  Kvpyvyv  in  Acts  ii.  10,  perhaps 
Kara  rov  TOTTOV  in  Luke  x.  32,  but  one  may  doubt  KO.T 


PREPOSITIONS:   Kara,  jura.  149 

OJVTGV  in  the  next  verse.  Kara  TT/OOO-OJTTOV  is  good 
Greek  (see  Polyb.  III.  xix.  7,  where  curiously  we 
have  TOJI/  pa/  Kara  irpovwirov  TOJK  Se  Kara  I/OJTOU),  but 
there  is  a  Hellenistic  element  in  its  sense  in  Luke  ii. 
31,  Acts  iii.  13,  and  even  Gal.  ii.  11.  More  decided 
is  the  extension  of  its  vaguest  and  most  general 
use,  "  in  relation  to,"  though  often  we  may  render 
"  according  to,"  "  by  way  of,"  and  so  bring  it  within 
recognised  meanings  of  the  word.  Teoi/  Kaff  v^as  TTOL^T^V 
in  Acts  xvii.  28  is  literary,  even  elegant,  Greek,  but 
of  a  late  period  :  and  the  use  of  TOLS  KO.T  i^o^v  in 
xxv.  23  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  unique,  the  phrase 
itself  being  anyhow  late.  Still  more  may  one  doubt 
whether  Kara  -rrao-av  airtav  -  (Matt.  xix.  3),  or  even 
/cara  ayvoiav  (Acts  iii.  17)  is  quite  good  Greek.  But 
of  St.  Paul's  Kara  ©eoi/,  Kara  yapw  and  the  like,  we 
may  say  that  it  is  the  thought  rather  than  the  word 
that  is  beyond  the  limits  of  Hellenism. 

Mera  has  for  its  primary  meaning  "  among," 
whether  it  be  etymologically  cognate  with  /*eVos  or 
not  :  and  this  sense  survives  more  or  less  in  some 
N.  T.  passages,  Luke  xxii.  37  (the  LXX.  has  lv  rot? 
di/o/xots  :  the  quotation  is  not  genuine  in  Mark  xv. 
28),  xxiv.  5  being  perhaps  those  ones  where  "  with  "  is 
most  inadequate  to  translate  it;  but  Mark  i.  13  and 
several  other  places  admit  or  require  the  sense  to  be 
more  or  less  present.  But  in  general  the  word  means 
no  more  than  "  with,"  and  it  seems  useless  to  try  to 
elaborate  a  distinction  between  it  and  o-w :  some  tell 
us  that  it  implies  a  much  closer  union  than  it,  some 
say  just  the  reverse.*  The  fact  is,  that  while  in  the 

*  If  there  be  any  definable  distinction,  I  should  rather  s^y 
it  is  that  avv  sets  the  tilings  connected  more  on  a  level,  while 


150   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

earliest  Greek  crvv  is  the  ordinary  word  for  "  with," 
as  time  went  011  /xera  began  to  supplant  it,  and 
became  far  commoner  than  it,  even  in  Attic :  vid. 
Liddell  &  Scott,  s.  v.  In  the  N.  T.  avv  is  rare,  except 
in  SS.  Luke  and  Paul — and  perhaps  we  should  add 
some  of  the  Catholic  Epp.,  which  are  too  short  to 
have  frequent  occasion  for  either.  As  o-w,  though 
never  used  like  our  "  with "  to  express  the  instru- 
mental relation,  yet  is  occasionally  used  of  things  that 
might  have  been  regarded  as  instruments,  so  we  may 
say //.era  is  used  in  Luke  xvii.  15,  perhaps  Acts  xiii.  17. 

In  Rev.  ii.  16,  xii.  7,  xiii.  4,  xvii.  14  we  find 
TToXeftetr  /xera  used  like  our  "  to  make  war  with,"  i.e. 
against.  This  is  exactly  the  Hebrew  &V  &n??  of 
Judges  v.  20,  1  Sam.  xvii.  33,  etc.  :  in  pure  Greek 
the  phrase  could  only  mean  "  to  make  war  in  alliance 
with."  Some  have  actually  so  taken  the  Hebrew  in 
Judges  1.  c.,  as  though  the  stars  fought  for  Sisera  and 
the  river  against  him :  but  in  most  of  the  0.  T. 
passages,  and  all  those  in  the  Apocrypha,  the  sense  is 
unmistakable.  Perhaps  we  may  rank  also  as  a  He- 
braism the  religious  sense  of  the  word,  which  we  find 
in  Matt.  i.  23  (cf.  Is.  viii.  8— in  vii.  14  the  LXX.  leave 
the  pr.  n.  untranslated),  Luke  i.  28,  John  iii.  2,  etc. 

Mera  c.  ace.  is  found  only  in  the  regular  sense  "  after" 

/x,erd  regards  the  noun  dependent  on  it  as  an  accompaniment 
to  the  other.  E.g.  in  Phil.  i.  1  the  address  is  to  the  whole 
Church  and  its  officers— they  being  sufficiently  important  to 
be  considered  as  co-ordinate  with  the  whole  body.  Mer' 
e-jrujKOTTuv  Kdl  ^ia.Kovwv  would  have  treated  them  as  mere 
appendages  to  it.  Yet  in  the  LXX.  of  Judges  i.  3,  2  (4) 
Kings  x.  15  we  have  /zera,  though  the  object  is  to  express 
association  in  exactly  equal  and  reciprocal  terms. 

*  [Where  vvv  is  confined  to  special  phrases  in  prose — 
except  in  Xenophon.] 


PREPOSITIONS:  /W,  Trapa'.  151 

— always  of  time  except  Heb.  ix.  3,  when  it  is  of 
place,  or  perhaps  rather  of  order.  The  only  irregu- 
larity to  be  noticed  is  the  Latinism  in  Acts  i.  5,  cor- 
responding to  that  noticed  below  s.  v.  Trpo.  Ilapa  is, 
generally  speaking,  used  correctly  with  all  three  cases. 
C.  gen.  there  are  a  few  phrases  where,  though  the  case 
has  its  proper  force,  its  point  is  apt  to  be  missed.  If 
we  read  the  gen.  in  Luke  i.  37  (no  one  reads  it  in  Gen. 
xviii.  14)  it  must  mean  "no  word  on  God's  part,  no 
word  spoken  by  God,"  whether  or  no  we  give  to 
aSui/a/reu/  its  classical  instead  of  its  Hellenistic  sense. 
In  Mark  iii.  21,  ot  Trap*  avrov  are  "  they  of  his  own 
house,"  and  similarly  the  neut.  in  v.  26,  "  all  the 
substance  of  her  house,"  all  that  (literally)  came  from 
the  place  where  she  was :  so  Luke  x.  7,  "  what  the 
household  supplies/'  though  the  A.Y.  gives  a  suitable 
sense. 

Ilapa  c.  gen.  is  in  Greek  prose  always  used  exclu- 
sively of  persons,  so  it  is  in  the  1ST.  T.  c.  dat.  also, 
with  the  one  exception  of  Trapa  ro>  o-ravpu  in  John  xix. 
25.  Among  many  idiomatic  usages  we  get  an  ethical 
one,  for  which  there  is  hardly  classical  precedent, 
though  it  is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  meaning  of 
the  word — Trap'  Ipoi  2  Cor.  i.  17,  "with  me,"  i.e.  "in 
my  character  "  or  "  habits  :  "  so  oftener  Trapa  ra>  ®€a>, 
Rom.  ii.  11,  ix.  14,  Eph.  vi.  9,  James  i.  17.  (Dif- 
ferent and  commoner  is  Trapa  TO>  ®€u>  in  Horn.  ii.  13, 
"  before  God,"  "  in  His  judgment")  C.  ace.,  the 
chief  point  to  notice  is  the  extension  of  its  sense  in 
comparison,  causing  it  to  be  used  (see  pp.  92-3)  after 
comparative  degrees,  and  in  other  ways  for  which  the 
sense  "beyond"  or  "above,"  which  it  has  no  doubt 
in  classical  Greek  (in  Plat.  Thecet.  p.  144  a,  we  even 


152   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

get  it  with  an  adj.,  ai/Spetov  Trap'  6vr«/oiV,  "  braver 
than  any  one  "),  gives  a  starting-point,  but  hardly  a  full 
justification.  Of  particular  phrases,  Rom.  i.  25  is 
naturally  translated  "  beyond  "  or  "  above,"  i.e.  "  more 
than  the  Creator,"  for  which  it  is  quite  good  Greek. 
Some  try  to  make  it  mean  "  passing  by  the  Creator" 
— more  possible  would  be  lt  in  contravention  of  His 
rights  :  "  but  without  a  verbal  phrase  defining  one  of 
these  senses  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  get  either  out 
of  the  prep.  In  xiv.  5  rj^pav  Trap'  r]fji€pav  is  certainly 
good  Greek  for  "  one  day  above  another  :  "  one  might 
hesitate  a  little  about  the  use  of  Kpivew,  but  it  is  so 
used  in  pure  Greek  with  Trpo,  if  not  with  -n-apd. 

Ilept  c.  gen.  goes  some  way  beyond  classical  usage 
towards  becoming*  synonymous  with  vTrep,  the  two 
being  often  interchanged  as  vv.  11.,  e.g.  Mark  xiv.  24. 
It  is  sometimes  doubtful  which  is  really  best  attested, 
and  at  any  rate  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  later  texts 
have  any  consistent  tendency  to  substitute  either  for 
the  other.  In  Eph.  vi.  18,  19,  they  stand  side  by 
side  in  the  same  constr.,  as  almost  synonymous.  One 
may  derive  this  sense  of  acting  on  behalf  of  a  thing 
from  a  combination  of  the  common  sense,  of  telling 
or  thinking  about  it,  and  the  equally  classical  sense 
of  striving  for  the  thing,  i.e.  to  get  or  save  it.  (Luke 
iv.  38  shows  how  easy  the  transition  is  from  the 
former  sense.)  It  does  not  mean,  quite  as  distinctly 
as  vTre/o,  in  the  interest,  for  the  benefit  of  the  dependent 
noun :  e.g.  the  characteristically  Hellenistic  phrase  Trepl 
d/mprias  means  that,  by  the  sin-offering,  there  is  a 
remembrance  made  of  sin ;  but  it  is  that  sin  may  be 
abolished,  not  retained.  At  the  same  time  we  have 
Trepi,  KaOapto-fJiov  (Mark  i.  44= Luke  v.  14),  which  is 


PREPOSITIONS:   wpt,  irp6.  153 

the  same  in  principle.  See  also  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  where 
Trepi  and  virip  have  distinguishable  senses.  If  there 
be  a  difference  between  the  two  in  Eph.  1.  c.,  it  pro- 
bably is  "  making  mention  of  all  God's  people,  and 
working  for  my  aid  " — making  the  most  of  what  they 
are  to  do  for  himself,  partly  from  the  sense  of  his 
need  under  trial,  and  of  his  helplessness  in  imprison- 
ment, and  partly  as  a  delicate  recognition  of  their 
dignity  as  his  intercessors.  But  John  xvi.  26,  xvii.  9, 
20  show  that  the  most  exalted  intercession  may  be 
worthily  expressed  by  irepL  Hardly  classical  is  the 
use  of  Trepi  in  John  x.  33,  where  it  appears  as  practi- 
cally equivalent  to  Sia  of  ver.  32  :  but  Acts  xxvi.  7 
explains  how  this  sense  is  reached.  (That  constr.  is 
classical,  except  for  the  pass,  use  of  ey/<aXo9/xat ;  which 
does  not  seem  to  occur,  but  is  paralleled  by  the  use 
of  the  pass,  of  other  verbs  governing  a  dat.). 

Ilepi  c.  dat.  does  not  occur  in  the  N.  T.,  though  the 
sense  of  it  is  involved  in  the  compounds  TrepiTretpeu/  and 
TrepiTriTrreii/.  Of  Trepi  c.  ace.,  most  of  the  uses  are 
regular  enough.  We  notice  the  use  of  ol  Trepi  avrov  in 
Mark  iv.  10,  Luke  xxii.  49  in  the  most  literal  sense, 
"they  that  were  about  Him":  but  in  Acts  xiii.  13 
01  Trept  II.  is  idiomatically  "  Paul  and  his  company." 
The  alleged  further  modification,  as  meaning  only  the 
person  named,  is  certainly  not  found  in  the  N.  T. : 
John  xi.  19  would  seem  like  it  if  the  T.  B,.  were 
genuine,  but  even  then  it  would  be  good  sense  "  to 
comfort  Martha,  Mary,  and  their  family  concerning 
their  brother. 

ITpo  needs  no  remark,  except  that  the  constr.  with 
a  double  gen.,  of  an  interval  of  time  elapsing  before 
an  event  (e.g.  John  xii.  1),  is  late  but  not  exclusively 


154   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

biblical :  it  is  explained  as  a  Latinism.  We  notice 
also  the  Hebraistic  pleonasm,  -n-po  irpocrwirov  c.  gen. 
meaning  no  more  than  TT/OO  :  generally  of  a  person,  so 
that  the  phrase  gains  somewhat  in  picturesqueness  or 
vigour,  as  in  Luke  ix.  52,  x.  1,  as  well  as  the  many 
more  or  less  direct  quotations  of  Mai.  iii.  1  :  but  in 
Acts  xiii.  24,  still  no  doubt  under  the  influence  of  that 
passage,  we  get  the  phrase  used  where  it  can  mean  no 
more  than  the  simple  prep. 

IIpos  c.  gen.  occurs  once  only  in  the  N.  T.  (Acts 
xxvii.  34)  in  the  (quite  classical)  sense  "  for/'  "  in  the 
interest  of."  C.  dat.  it  is  not  much  more  frequent — 
Mark  v.  11  (true  text),  Luke  xix.  37,  John  xviii.  16, 
xx.  11  (true  text),  12,  Rev.  i.  13.  In  all  these  places 
the  meaning  is  obviously  "  close  to,"  never  "  in  addi- 
tion to."  But  in  general,  even  in  this  sense  Trpos  is 
used  c.  ace. — not  only  in  places  like  Mark  xi.  4, 
where  we  might  say  "  tied  to  the  door,"  but  in  Mark 
ii.  2,  iv.  1,  xiv.  54= Luke  xxii.  56,  where  it  is  of  place, 
with  no  notion  of  motion.  Matt.  xiii.  56  =  Mark  vi. 
3,  xxvi.  18,  Mark  ix.  19  =  Luke  ix.  41,  xiv.  49,  and 
several  other  places  where  it  is  used  of  persons,  are 
on  a  somewhat  different  footing :  there  is  no  notion 
of  motion  necessarily  involved  (see  esp.  1  Cor.  xvi.  6, 
7,  Gal.  i.  18),  but  the  sense  seems  not  to  be  merely 
local,  but  to  suggest  active  personal  relations :  note 
the  use  in  Gal.  ii.  5,  shortly  after  the  last  of  the 
passages  cited,  or  in  Rom.  iv.  2,  1  John  ii.  1.  In  St. 
John  Ev.  i.  1,  Ep.  I.  i.  2,  Trpos  TOV  ®N,  TT/OOS  rot/  UFA, 
certainly  means  much  more  than  "  closest,"  "  in  contact 
with  :  "  it  is  rather  "  in  living  relation  with  :  "  of  6  on/ 
ets  TOV  KoXirov  in  Ev.  i.  18 — which  differs  from  Iv  TW 
KoA.7TO)  just  as,  in  xiii.  23-5,  di/a7recra>i/  CTTI  TO  o-rfjOos  is 


PREPOSITIONS:   Trpo's,  ™V,  faip.         155 


more  than  dyaKet^ui/o?  iv  ra>  KO\TT<I).  The  other  uses  of 
the  word  seem  to  need  no  comment,  except  in  relation 
to  its  distinction  from  ets  in  certain  ethical  relations. 
We  have  the  two  prepositions  used  side  by  side  in 
Rom.  iii.  25-6,  Eph.  iv.  12,  and  perhaps  Philem.  5. 
In  the  first  two  passages,  the  relations  and  con- 
nexion of  the  clauses  are  too  doubtful  to  give  us  a 
fair  start  for  discussion  of  the  difference,  if  any, 
between  the  prepositions.  But  in  the  third,  the  only 
doubtful  question  (assuming  that  the  reading  with 
both  prepositions  is  the  true  one,  as  is  likely  a  priori, 
MS.  evidence  being  ambiguous)  is  whether  the  two 
are  to  be  taken  as  correlative  with  the  two  nouns  — 
saying  with  Bishop  Lightfoot  "there  is  a  propriety  in 
using  Trpo's  of  the  faith  which  aspires  towards  Christ, 
and  cts  of  the  love  which  is  exerted  upon  men  ;  "  or 
whether,  if  this  separation  seem  uncalled  for,  we  shall 
say  that  Philemon's  faith  and  love  went  to  Christ  as 
to  one  object,  but  went  among  men,  dispersing  their 
good  gifts  to  each. 

Sw  needs  no  comment,  further  than  what  has 
already  been  said  of  its  relation  to  /xera,  and  its 
rarity  as  compared  therewith. 

'YTrep  is  never  used  in  a  merely  local  sense,  either 
with  gen.  or  ace.,  €7raVo>,  or  more  rarely  {>7re/xxvto,  c. 
gen.  being  available  for  this  purpose.  As  already 
mentioned,  it  tends  to  approximate  to  and  become 
confused  with  Trepi;  and  indeed  vwzp  has  the  better 
right  to  approximate  to  the  ether,  for  the  sense  "  con- 
cerning," found  e.g.  Rom.  ix.  27,  2  Cor.  i.  8  (?),  viii.  23, 
is  a  legitimate  and  classical  one,  though  rarer  in  good 
Attic  than  in  earlier  or  later  Greek.  (See  Plat.  Leg. 
p.  776  e,  where  the  language  has  a  half  epic  colouring.) 


156   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Uses  like  2  Cor.  i.  6,  7,  2  Thess.  ii.  1  are  modifica- 
tions of  this  meaning ;  2  Cor.  xii.  8  may  be  held  to 
mark  a  transition  to  the  next.  The  commonest  N".  T. 
sense  of  the  word,  and  a  common  one  in  all  Greek, 
is  "  on  behalf  of,"  sometimes  "  on  the  side  of,"  as 
Mark  ix.  40  =  Luke  ix.  50,  Rom.  viii.  31.  To  this 
we  must  refer  Rom.  xv.  8  (=n"by  His  ministry  it 
was  secured  that  God  should  be  true"),  Phil.  ii.  13 — 
where,  taking  virep  TT/S  evS.  with  o  evepyw,  as  is 
usual,  it  is  "  in  order  to  carry  out  His  gracious  will :  " 
if  we  connect  it  rather  with  the  two  infinitives,  it  will, 
be  "  that  your  will  and  action  may  be  on  the  side  of 
His  gracious  will."  1  Cor.  iv.  6  is  no  doubt  used 
of  men  boasting  of  their  party  leaders  or  their  party 
following,  and  so  is  like  2  Cor.  vii.  4  etc.  :  but  some 
take  it  "  that  ye  be  riot  puffed  up  one  over  another  " 
— which  would  be  natural  Greek  enough,  but  unique 
in  the  1ST.  T.,  as  well  as  less  suitable  to  the  context. 

It  is  a  question  how  near  virep  in  this  sense,  "  on 
behalf  of,"  approximates  to  the  meaning  of  O.VTL 
"  instead  of."  Of  the  many  passages  where  virip  is 
used  of  the  Atonement,  Gal.  iii.  13  is  almost  the  only 
one  that  suggests  the  equivalence.  If  we  desire  to 
approach  the  theological  question  on  its  grammatical 
side,  we  had  better  start  from  Philem.  13,  where  virlp 
(Tov  "  as  your  representative  "  comes  practically  to  the 
same  thing  as  avrl  crov  "  as  your  substitute,"  but  is 
not  quite  the  same.  And  2  Cor.  v.  14  illustrates  the 
extent  of  the  difference,  corresponding  to  that  between 
the  true  translation  of  the  aor.  and  that  of  the 
A.V.  'YTrep  c.  ace.  has  only  the  sense,  in  the  N.  T., 
of  "  beyond "  or  "  above,"  of  measure  or  degree. 
Besides  its  classical  uses  in  this  sense,  it  is  used  like 


PREPOSITIONS:   vTrtp,  foro.  157 


a  (as  already  mentioned,  pp.  92-3)  in  comparative 
sentences  where  a  prep,  cannot  be  considered  classical  : 
in  fact,  there  is  less  classical  precedent  for  so  using 
vTrlp  than  for  Trapa. 

The  adverbial  use  in  2  Cor.  xi.  23  is  unique  :  but 
vTTtpXiav  in  xi.  5,  xii.  11,  though  we  know  of  no 
precedents,  has  as  good  a  right  to  exist  as  vwcpdyav 
(whether  we  write  either  as  one  word  or  two). 

'YTTO  c.  gen.  is  only  usod  of  agency,  its  commonest 
classical  sense.  There  is  nothing  to  surprise  us  in  its 
use  with  neut.  verbs,  as  in  Matt.  xvii.  12  etc.,  hardly 
in  2  Cor.  xi.  24.  But  the  use  receives  an  extension 
which  is  hardly  gocd  Greek  in  Rev.  vi.  8,  though 
there  we  see  the  reason  for  using  vwo  of  the  living- 
agents,  as  distinct  from  the  instrumental  lv  of  lifeless 
causes.  Hdt.  VII.  xxii.  2,  Ivi.  1,  6/ovWcu/,  Sia/fruWv 
VTTO  ncurriyw,  are  not  really  parallel  to  this  —  rather 
to  id.  I.  xvii.  3,  with  perhaps  a  sarcastic  reminiscence 
of  that  use. 

The  poetical  use  of  VTTO  c.  dat.  of  course  is  not 
found  in  the  1ST.  T.  That  c.  ace.  is  comparatively 
rare,  and  does  not  differ  from  the  classical. 

We  may  conclude  with  one  or  two  general  remarks 
about  the  use  of  prepositions.  Besides  the  compo- 
sitions for  the  sake  of  redundant  emphasis,  noted  on 
p.  42,  we  find  combinations  of  a  prep,  and  an  adv.  of 
time  very  much  commoner  in  late  Greek  than  in 
classical,  and  prob.  in  biblical  Greek  commoner  than 
in  secular.  A  few  such  phrases,  e.g.  ets  aet,  TrapaW/ca, 
are  quite  classical,  and  even  approached  or  assumed 
the  character  of  compound  adverbs  :  but  a-n-dpTi  (in 
the  sense  of  "  henceforth"  —  in  a  different  sense  aTraprt 


158   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

is  older),  e<£a7ra£  appear  first  in  comedians,  and  in  no 
classical  Greek  is  as  common  as  in  the  N.  T.  St. 
Matthew's  a-n-o  rore  (also  Luke  xvi.  16)  may  be 
instanced  :  so  0,71-0  7rpa>t,  CCTTO  Trepixri  (which  is  unique, 
2  Cor.  viii.  10,  ix.  2),  eWaAcu. 

When  a  prep,  has  more  nouns  than  one  depending 
on  it,  the  prep,  is  repeated  with  each  of  them  more 
frequently  in  the  N.  T.  than  in  pure  Greek.  In 
Luke  xxiv.  27,  the  second  O-TTO  almost  spoils  the 
sense  of  the  first — the  sense  is  "  going  on  through  all 
the  prophets,"  and  perhaps  the  repetition  adds  the 
idea  of  drawing  from  each,  but  it  would  not  have 
occurred  in  a  pure  Greek  writer.  In  1  Thess.  i.  5, 
the  second  lv  was  of  course  required  after  dAAa,  but 
the  third  and  (si  vera  I.)  fourth  have  at  most  a  rhe- 
torical value.  Mark  xiii.  32  (true  text),  1  Tim. 
ii.  9,  v.  19,  Heb.  x.  28,  are  said  to  be  the  only  cases 
where  nouns  separated  by  disjunctive  conjunctions 
have  only  one  prep,  between  them;  and  every  one 
will  see  that  in  all  these  cases — in  the  two  last 
especially — the  repetition  would  have  been  impossible, 
or  have  altered  the  sense.  In  clauses  where  there 
is  a  comparison  (e.g.  Actsxi.  15  CTT'  avrovs  .  .  .  okrTrep 
€<£'  Tj/xas)  the  prep,  is  always  repeated :  always  after 
an  adversative,  except  sometimes  where  (as  1  Pet. 
i.  23)  it  is  adjectives  belonging  to  one  subst.  that  are 
distinguished  (so  ibid.  ver.  1 1  after  a  disjunctive).  In 
Acts  vii.  4,  xx.  18  we  get  the  prep,  repeated  with 
the  rel.,  though  by  no  means  the  most  suitable  prep, 
to  its  place  in  the  sentence,  by  a  curious  extension 
of  the  principle  of  attraction.  In  xiii.  2,  39  we  have, 
far  more  classically,  the  prep,  omitted  with  the  rel., 
being  understood  from  the  antecedent  clause.  In 


PREPOSITIONS  AND  ADVERBS.        159 

vii.  38,  tRere  is  perha.ps  a  point  in  the  omission  of 
//.era  before  TWI/  TT.  ^/xou/ — the  privilege  of  "  our  fathers  " 
is  heightened,  when  one  may  speak  of  being  "  with 
the  Angel  and  them."  But  in  xxvi.  18,  1  Cor.  x.  28, 
Heb.  vii.  27  the  repetition  of  the  prep,  would  have 
been  more  natural  :  in  the  two  former  places,  there 
is  just  enough  MS.  testimony  for  it,  to  show  that 
early  scribes  felt  it  so. 

Besides  these  prepositions  commonly  recognised  as 
such,  the  N.  T.  makes  very  extensive  use  of  the 
adverbs  and  other  words  that  take  the  constr.  of 
prepositions ;  including  some  peculiar  to  late  Greek, 
or  even  to  the  Hellenistic  dialect.  Thus  besides  the 
classical  aVriKpvs  and  ei/ai/rt'ov,  we  get  eravrt,  d-Trevavrt, 
KarevavTi,  ei/ojTrioi/,  /carei/wTrioi/ :  of  which  a-rrevavTi  alone 
is  found  in  pure  if  late  Greek,  as  is  the  adj.  ei/wTuos, 
but  not  the  adverbial  neut.  Being  common  in  the 
LXX.,  it  looks  as  though  it  were  conceived  as  a  literal 
translation  of  'Otf?.  Besides  e/^Trpocr^ei/  and  O7rio-#€i/, 
we  find  OTTIO-W  c.  gen.  :  besides  ^TreWva,  with  which  we 
may  couple  Trepctv  and  di/rtVepa,  which  is  late  only 
in  form,  vTrepe/ceiFo, :  besides  e/cros  and  l^co^ev,  Trape/cros  : 
besides  the  simple  ews  c.  gen.,  we  get  such  phrases 
not  only  as  e<os  TOV  vw,  but  the  direct  combination 
with  notes  of  time,  ecos  a/cm,  ecus  TTOTC,  ews  cr?y/x,epoi/ 
(2  Cor.  iii.  15),  with  local  words,  ewg  wSe.  (Luke 
xxiii.  5),  ews  oVa>  (John  ii.  7),  ecos  /carw  (Matt,  xxvii. 
51  =  Mark  xv.  38),  ew?  ecrco  et?  (Mark  xiv.  54),  ecos 
efo)  c.  gen.  (Acts  xxi.  5),  with  a  numeral,  coos  e7rra/as 
(Matt,  xviii.  21-2),  and  with  prepositions,  eo>s  ets,  ews 
eTTt.  'ETTUI/W  and  (the  late)  vTrepdvw  have  received 
extensions  of  meaning,  as  well  as  become  relatively 
more  frequent.  eY7repeK7repio-o-oi),  which  is  used 


160   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

adverbially  in  1  Thess.  iii.  10,  v.  13  (?),  is  perhaps 
hardly  quite  prepositional  in  Eph.  iii.  20  :  but  arep, 
eyyu?,  ej/ros,  /xera£'v,  7r\r)v,  TrXrjcrLov,  VTTOKOLT^,  ^copt's  are 
all  found  in  the  N.  T.  as  virtual  prepositions  c.  gen.  : 
so  are  the  less  local  eVe/ca  and  x(¥)tv  :  <rtnd  so  are  a/xa, 
v?,  TrapaTrXrjcrLov  c.  dat. 


(5)  Conjunctions. 

Conjunctions  in  the  strictest  sense  —  particles  that 
serve,  not  to  articulate  the  structure  of  a  sentence, 
but  to  couple  together  co-ordinate  sentences,  or  words 
or  clauses  that  hold  co-ordinate  places  in  a  sentence  — 
are  in  the  N.  T.  comparatively  wanting  in  variety, 
and  are  made  to  do  a  good  deal  of  duty.  Of  the  two 
common  Greek  copulatives,  re  is  rare,  except  in  the 
semi-classical  language  of  Acts  and  Hebrews.  In  St. 
Paul  and  St.  Luke's  Gospel  the  correlative  re  KO.L  is 
less  rare  than  the  simple  re  ;  but  the  latter  never  has 
re  for  uand,"  and  the  former  only  in  1  Cor.  iv.  21, 
Eph.  iii.  19,  (the  double  TC  only  in  Rom.  i.  26)  :  the 
use  of  TC  yap  in  Rom.  vii.  7  (2  Cor.  x.  8  ?  is  different, 
and  late  though  not  exclusively  Hellenistic).  St. 
Mark  and  the  Apoc.,  as  well  as  some  of  the  shorter 
Epp.,  never  (according  to  their  true  text)  use  re 
at  all. 

Kai.  on  the  other  hand,  is  used  very  extensively, 
and  most  so  in  the  most  Hebraic  books,  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  and  the  Apoc.  Even  in  the  Acts,  we  get  it 
more  frequently  than  we  should  in  a  classical  narra- 
tive, and  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  frequency  is 
more  or  less  directly  a  reproduction  of  0.  T.  style, 
and  so  in  some  sense  a  Hebraism. 

In  what  sense   and  to  what   extent  it  is  so,  is  a 


CONJUNCTIONS:    KOLI.  161 

further  question,  and  not  free  from  doubt.  Not  only 
is  it  characteristic  of  biblical  Hebrew  *  to  link  every 
successive  sentence  in  a  narrative  to  the  preceding 
one  by  the  same  conj.,  but  that  conj.  is  what  has 
been  called  "  a  conjunctive  general  " — it  is  used  to 
suggest  various  relations  between  clauses  which,  in 
any  European  language,  we  should  express  by  different 
particles.  E.g.  in  Ps.  li.  16  (Heb.  18)  a  "literal" 
translation  would  be  "  For  Thou  desirest  not  sacrifice 
and  I  [will]  give  it :  "  the  meaning  is,  in  all  likeli- 
hood, that  of  either  the  text  or  the  margin  of  the 
English  Bible,  "else  would  I  give  it,"  or  "that 
I  should  give  it,"  but  a  few  take  it  to  be  "  though  I 
will  give  that  too  :  "  in  any  case,  we  should  use  some- 
thing more  distinctive  than  a  simple  copulative. 

Now  it  would  certainly  be  wrong  to  suppose  that 
the  N".  T.  use  of  KO.L  covers  as  wide  a  range  of  meaning 
as  this  :  at  most,  it  may  perhaps  be  credible  that  the 
Seer  of  the  Apocalypse,  with  his  mind  steeped  in  the 
language  of  the  O.  T.  Prophets,  in  one  passage  (x.  7  • 
see  p.  98)  unconsciously  followed  Hebrew  idiom  in  the 
use  of  the  simplest  and  commonest  conj.  As  a  rule, 
we  get  /cat  not  only  more  frequently  used,  but  used 
with  a  somewhat  wider  range  of  meaning,  than  would 
be  the  case  in  classical  Greek :  but  we  do  not  get  it 
used  except  in  cases  where  it  would  be  just  admissible 
in  Greek,  or  where  the  LXX.  has  (with  or  without 
some  native  Greek  analogy)  established  its  use  as 
idiomatic  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect.  As  examples  of 

*  Not  of  Aramaic,  as  even  the  English  reader  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  may  notice.  The  A.  V.  often  there  inserts  an 
"  and  "  in  italics,  feeling  it  to  be  necessary  for  assimilation  t<3 
the  ordinary  biblical  style. 

11 


162   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  latter  kind  we  may  take  the  use  of  KOL  eye^ero 
followed  by  an  indie. ;  of  a  second  KCLI  or  KOI  I8ov  after 
this  (or,  in  St.  Luke,  after  the  equivalent  eyevero  8e)  ; 
of  KCLL  or  KCLL  i8ou  at  the  beginning  of  the  apodosis  to 
relative  sentences*  (Luke  ii.  21 ;  Rev.  xiv.  10,  etc.)  : 
of  the  former,  the  use  with  notes  of  time  in  places 
like  Matt.  xxvi.  2,  45,  Mark  xv.  25, f  Luke  xix.  43, 
Acts  v.  7,  Heb.  viii.  8  (which  differs  more  or  less  from 
any  independently  known  text  of  the  LXX.,  but 
agrees  with  it  in  this  constr.),  and  some — it  is  hard  to 
say  how  many — of  the  cases  where  we  may  translate 
KCLL  "  and  so,"  "  and  then  "  or  the  like,  or  where  we 
might  have  expected  an  adversative  rather  than  a 
copulative.  It  will  be  worth  the  student's  while  to 
examine  the  uses  of  KO,I  ranked  in  Bruder's  Concord- 
ance under  the  heads,  not  only  of  I.  2  "  ubi  magis 
recedere  videtur  particulse  usus  ab  dicendi  Occiden- 
talium  ratione,  aliis  particulis  sententiarumque  con- 
formationibus  utentium,"  but  of  I.  1.  C.  "  KCLI 
rhetorics  indolis  :  in  sententiis  strenue  oppositis,  in 

*  The  few  classical  passages  where  KCU  stands  redundantly, 
introducing  an  apodosis,  usually  to  a  ptcp.,  are  not  really 
parallel  to  this.  And  when  it  introduces  the  apod,  to  a 
relative  clause  (e.g.  Thuc.  II.  xciii.  3)  it  seems  to  have  a  more 
distinctively  emphatic  sense  than  in  the  Hellenistic  passages. 

|  Winer  points  out,  that  this  constr.  covers  two  cases 
different  in  principle.  Luke  xxiii.  44  is  no  more  than  an 
exact  parallel  to  Soph.  Phil.  354-6  or  to  Plat.  Symp.  220  <", 
(in  the  story  of  Socrates'  trance  before  Potidrea),  ijdrj  fy 
fji€<jr)jm^pia  KCLI  &vdpwjr.ot.  ya9dvoi>TO  :  but  in  Mark  1.  c.  the  point  is 
not  "such  an  hour  came,  and  then  something  happened  : '' 
we  have  been  told  in  ver.  24  aravpoucriv  avTov,  and  now  what 
we  learn  is,  when  this  was  done.  St.  Mark's  sentence  is  a 
non-Hellenic  way  of  saying  "  It  was  the  third  hour  when  they 
crucified  Him  :  "  St.  Luke's  is  a  vivid  and  perfectly  Hellenic 
way  of  following  the  day  through  its  course,  and  noting  its 
events  as  they  came. 


CONJUNCTIONS:   KCU,   re.  163 

presse  dictis,"  and  D.  "  KO.L  initio  apodoseos  positum." 
But  generally  it  will  be  right  to  translate  it  simply 
"  and,"  even  in  passages  like  Mark  xii.  12,  Rom.  i.  13, 
1  Thess.  ii.  18,  where  the  English  sentence  would  be 
clearer  with  "  but."  The  Greek  conjunctions,  copula- 
tive and  adversative,  correspond  fairly  enough  to  the 
English :  and  it  is  a  fact  which  we  have  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  in  Hellenistic  Greek  the  copulative  not 
the  adversative  are  here  used.  Of  course  this  will 
not  apply  to  the  other  case,  where  there  is  a  real 
Hebraism  or  anacoluthon  in  the  structure  of  the 
sentence  :  there  no  one  disputes  that  we  must  trans- 
late "  And  it  came  to  pass  that  .  .  ."  "  For  if  I 
grieve  you,  who  then  is  he,  etc."  (2  Cor.  ii.  2),  and 
the  like. 

The  use  of  TC,  in  the  books  that  do  use  it,  does  not 
materially  differ  from  the  classical.  Only  it  may  be 
thought  that  some  writers  are  too  fond  of  it,  and  put 
it  in  where,  if  not  redundant,  it  suggests  a  false  view 
of  the  structure  of  the  sentence.  Thus  in  Acts  xix. 
27,  xxi.  28  re  KCU  are  not  correlative,  but  mean  "  and 
that  she  should  even  be  deposed,"  "  and  further  hath 
brought  Greeks  also :  "  while  in  xxvi.  10  we  get  Kal 
TfoXAWs  re  together,  as  though  KCU  ...  re  stood  like 
KCU  .  .  .  8e for  "and  .  .  .  also,"  whereas  really  TroAAovs 
re  ...  KaT€K\€Lcra  is  co-ordinate  with  dvcupov/xeVouv  re 
.  .  .  i/r»?</>ov.  And  whereas  in  classical  Greek  re  KCU 
often  serve  to  mark  a  slight  opposition,  of  the  same 
sort  as  pas  .  .  .  Se  though  milder  (nearly  like  the 
English  "  as  well  ...  as  ...  "),  in  the  N.  T.  it  does 
not  seem  to  have  this  force — a  double  KCU  sometimes 
comes  nearer  to  it,  as  Rom.  xiv.  9,  1  Cor.  vi.  14, 
Phil.  iv.  12  etc.  So  perhaps  in  John  xvii.  25  the 


164   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

first  /cat  is  correlative,  not  to  the  immediately  following 
Se  but  to  the  second  /cat' :  the  effect  being  something 
like,  "While  the  world  knew  Thee  not,  though  I 
knew  Thee,  these  T>n  their  part  knew.  .  .  ." 

There  is  not  much  to  be  said  of  what  may  almost 
be  called  the  adverbial  use  of  /cat — that  which  we 
represent  by  the  words  "  also,"  "  even,"  or  the  like. 
Perhaps  the  most  distinctive  type  of  this  use  is  where 
it  occurs  in  comparisons — sometimes  in  the  relative 
clause,  as  1  Cor.  vii.  7,  sometimes  in  both,  as  Rom. 
i.  13  (last  two  clauses),  more  commonly  in  the  ante- 
cedent clause,  either  emphasising  an  adv.,  as  Matt, 
vii.  12,  or  alone  as  in  Matt.  vi.  10.  For  all  of  these, 
however,  there  are  classical  parallels. 

Of  disjunctive  conjunctions,  we  need  only  notice 
the  correct  use  of  rjrot  in  Rom.  vi.  16.  The  word  is 
regularly  used  with  the  first  of  two  or  more  alterna 
tives,  which  it  is  desired  to  emphasise — sometimes  as 
the  more  desirable,  sometimes,  as  here,  as  the  more 
probable. 

The  negatives  ovSe  and  /x^Se,  oirre  and  /XT/TC,  though 
commonly  ranked  as  disjunctives,  have  almost  more 
affinity  in  use  with  copulatives.  We  are  here  con- 
cerned with  the  difference,  not  between  the  negative 
particles,  but  with  that  between  the  conjunctions  com- 
bined with  them,  the  rules  for  the  use  of  each  pair 
being  much  the  same.  Of  course  in  the  case  of  words 
so  similar  both  in  form  and  meaning,  confusion  of 
reading  between  them  is  common :  but  according  to 
the  best  textual  evidence  it  appears  that  OVTC  and 
/xryre  are  indeed  sometimes  used  beyond  the  limits 
allowed  in  pure  Greek,  but  that  such  cases  are  rarer 
in  the  original  than  in  the  later  texts  of  the  N.  T. 


CONJUNCTIONS:    o£re,    pjre,    dAAa'.        165 

The  single  ovre  in  James  iii.  12,  and  the  /XT/  ...  JUT/TC 
.  .  .  juT/re  of  Acts  xxiii.  8  are  perhaps  the  only  certain 
cases  of  incorrect  use ; — for  the  latter  is  not  parallel 
to  Matt.  v.  34-6,  1  Tim.  i.  7,  etc.,  where  we  have 
a  general  case  stated  with  pj,  and  then  broken  up 
into  a  number  of  subordinate  alternatives  with 
perhaps  //^re  tli/ai  avdo'Tacrw  fjLrjrz  ayyeXov  /x^Se 
"  that  there  is  neither  resurrection  nor  angel  or  spirit," 
would  have  expressed  most  correctly  the  writer's 
meaning.  For  the  use  of  ov  (1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10  best 
text)  or  ouSc  in  the  last  clause  after  one  or  more  oure  's 
there  is  classical  precedent,  though  mostly  in  poetry, 
e.y.  ^Esch.  Prom.  450-1  :  ouSc  in  Luke  xx.  35,  36, 
Acts  xxiv.  12  needs  no  justification.  Oure  .  .  .  /cat 
in  John  iv.  11,  3  John  10  is  late  (at  least,  the  only 
classical  instance  cited,  Eur.  I.  1\  591-2,  is  doubtful)  : 
but  it  is  just  equivalent  to  the  classical  ourc  ...  re. 
In  James  iii.  14  we  have,  as  in  Hebrew,  two  verbs 
joined  by  the  simple  /cat,  and  the  negative  that  goes 
with  the  former  applying  to  both — /cat  in  fact  being 
used  where  ///^Se  would  be  more  obvious.  Here  the 
change  of  conjunction  perhaps  modifies  the  meaning 
a  little,  but  it  may  be  really  due  to  the  influence  of 
Hebrew  idiom  :  it  is  different  in  2  Cor.  xii.  21,  where 
we  have  verbs  connected  with  /cat  after  </>o/3oi)/>tat  /xry, 
and  in  the  passages  where  Isa.  vi.  9,  10  are  quoted. 

Of  adversatives,  the  simple  and  common  use  of 
oAAa  is  most  frequent,  at  least  in  the  Gospels,  after 
negatives — Matt.  v.  15,  17,  etc.  :  but  we  also  get  it 
before  negatives,  as  in  Mark  x.  27,  or  in  other 
relations,  as  in  Mark  xiii.  24,  1  Pet.  iii.  15  :  occa- 
sionally after  //,eV,  as  (Mark  ix.  13?),  Acts  iv.  16. 
Besides  this,  we  have  to  note  its  use  (1)  in  pathetic 


166   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

appeals  (not  however,  in  the  N.  T.,  where  a  strictly 
adversative  force  is  excluded),  Matt.  ix.  18,  Mark  ix. 
22  :  (2)  in  stating  or  meeting  an  objection,  Lat.  at, 
Rom.  x.  16,  18,  19,  xi.  4,  etc.  :  (3)  in  St.  Paul  only, 
in  the  apodosis  to  concessive  or  even  hypothetical 
sentences,  Rom.  vi.  5,  1  Cor.  ix.  2,  2  Cor.  v.  16, 
(xiii.  4,  T.  R.),  Col.  ii.  5  ;  and  this  sometimes  after 
another  aXXd,  2  Cor.  iv.  16,  or  before  one,  xi.  6  :  (4) 
in  answering  one  rhetorical  question  by  another, 
Heb.  iii.  16  :  (5)  where  the  adversative  form  almost 
disappears,  the  point  being  a  climax,  Phil.  i.  18. 

We  notice  with  this  word  the  tendency  of  the 
declining  language  to  combine  and  accumulate 
particles:  we  get  twice  (Luke  xii.  51,  2  Cor.  i.  13 — 
not  1  Cor.  iii.  5)  dXX'  77,  one  or  other  particle  being 
redundant;  twice  (Luke  xxiv.  21,  1  Cor.  ix.  2) 
dAAa  ye ;  once  (Phil.  iii.  8)  dXXa  plv  ovv  [ye],  as  well 
as  the  frequent  and  natural  dAAa  /cat. 

Ae'  by  itself  is  something  between  a  copulative  and 
an  adversative  conj.,  or  at  least  its  natural  English 
equivalent  is  almost  equally  often  "  and  "  and  "  but." 
Perhaps  it  stands  oftener  in  the  N.  T.  than  in  classical 
Greek  for  a  mere  note  of  transition,  at  the  beginning 
of  a  sentence,  where  we  in  English  should  put  no 
conj.  at  all,  or  at  most  the  particle  "  Now."  Its 
use  is  somewhat  freer  in  the  writers  whose  style  is 
more  nearly  classical,  but  it  can  hardly  be  said  to 
be  markedly  more  or  less  frequent  in  one  than  in 
another.  At  least,  if  we  think  its  greater  rarity 
in  St.  John's  Epp.  and  in  the  Apoc.  not  to  be 
accidental,  it  yet  is  due  less  to  want  of  familiarity 
with  the  particle  than  to  deeper  characteristics  of 
their  style.  St.  Luke's  substitution  of  eyeVero  Se  for 


CONJUNCTIONS:  /xeV,   Se'.  167 

the  more  purely  Hebraic  KOL  eyevero  is  perhaps  the 
most  important  point  to  be  noticed  under  this  head. 
The  combination  i<al  .  .  .  Se,  "  and  .  .  .  also,"  is  used 
just  as  in  pure  Greek,  and  not  much  more  frequently. 

The  characteristically  Greek  form  of  antithetical 
sentence,  with  its  balanced  words  or  clauses  marked 
by  //,«/  and  Se,  has  by  no  means  become  obsolete  in 
the  1ST.  T.  :  we  find  it  in  every  writer ; — unless  we 
refer  2  Peter  and  the  Apoc.  to  separate  authorship ; 
for  it  occurs  in  neither  of  them  (nor  in  St.  John's  Epp.). 

Like  other  pure  Hellenic  idioms,  it  is  most  frequent 
in  SS.  Luke,  Paul,  and  Heb.  :  but  perhaps  it  is  in 
1  Peter  that  its  use  is  freest,  and  contributes  most 
to  the  sense  :  certainly  every  time  that  he  uses  it 
(five  times,  not  counting  ii.  14,  where  omit  /xeV)  the 
antithesis  is  emphatic.  In  the  Gospels,  p.lv  .  .  .  Se  is 
rare  (though  not  unknown  in  any  of  them),  except 
in  the  phrase  6  (or  o§)  /xev  /c.r.X.  (see  p.  52) :  notice 
especially  Matt,  xxiii.  2-12,  where  ^iv  does  not  occur 
at  all,  though  there  are  many  phrases  where  it  would 
be  forcible.  Nowhere  in  the  N".  T.  do  we  get  the 
emphatic  idiom,  where  something  is  said  about  the 
conjugate  sentence  which  properly  refers  to  the  8e 
clause  only;  so  that  we  in  English  have  to  recast 
the  antithetical  sentence  into  a  concessive  one,  and 
represent  //,«/  by  "  while  "or  "  though,"  and  the  oe 
clause  by  an  apodosis.  The  disuse  of  this  idiom  is 
the  more  remarkable,  that  in  Rom.  vi.  17  we  actually 
have  a  sentence  of  this  type  and  meaning,  but  the 
/xev  is  omitted.  In  John  iii.  19,  again,  we  might 
naturally  have  had  this  constr. — on  TO  //-ev  </>o>s  .  .  .  ot 
Se  avOpwTToi :  see  also  p.  187,  on  1  Pet.  i.  8.  Other- 
wise, we  have  little  variation  from  classical  usage, 


168    LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

and  much  variety  in  harmony  with  it.  MeV  is  occa- 
sionally answered,  not  by  Se  but  by  other  particles 
(Mark  ix.  12,  Acts  iv.  16  dAAa,  Luke  xxii.  22  TrX^v, 
John  xi.  6,  etc.  eTretra  :  even  /cat  in  Acts  xxvii.  21)  : 
occasionally  also  it  stands  absolutely,  not  only  in 
the  combination  /xev  ovv  (which  itself  passes  by  im- 
perceptible degrees  from  a  combination  of  the  two 
independent  particles  to  become  itself  an  adversative 
particle),  but  of  the  simple  /x,eV,  having  lost  its  second 
clause  by  an  aposiopesis  or  anacoluthon  (Acts  i.  1, 
iii.  21,  xxviii.  22,  and  several  times  in  St.  Paul).* 
Me/  ovv  is  used  quite  in  the  classical  manner  by 
St.  Luke,  esp.  in  Acts,  and  now  and  then  by  St. 
Paul  (1  Cor.  vi.  4,  7  :  in  Rom.  xi.  13  it  is  perhaps 
questionable  if  it  has  exactly  the  classic  force)  and 
in  Hebrews  (vii.  11,  ix.  1).  But  it  is  peculiar  to  the 
N.  T.  to  use  jji€vovvy€  (Luke  xi.  28,  Rom.  ix.  20, 
x.  18)  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence — whether  we 
write  it  as  one  word,  or  as  two,  or  three.  MeVrot 
is  not  very  frequent,  but  is  used  correctly — oftenest 
by  St.  John,  who  once  (xii.  42)  has  the  somewhat 
redundant  O/XGJS  /xeVrot.  KatVot  is  correctly  used,  as 
an  adversative  conj.  in  Acts  xiv.  17,  as  a  concessive 
particle  (rarer,  but  not  unknown,  in  good  Greek)  in 
Heb.  iv.  3.  The  use  of  KatVoiye  in  John  iv.  2,  and 
those  of  Katye  in  (Luke  xix.  42?)  Acts  ii.  18  (from 
0.  T.,  but  not  in  LXX.),  xvii.  27  (true  text)  are 
further  from  classical  use.  Of  /caiye  without  an 
intervening  word  the  only  good  Attic  instance  cited 
is  Lysias  in  Theomn.  ii.  7 ;  and  that  is  not  really 
parallel  to  any  of  these — most  nearly  to  Acts  ii.  18. 

*  Kom.  i.   8,  iii.    2,   vi.   21,    (•».    /.),   x.  1,   xi.    13   (T.    K.), 
1  Cor.  xi.  18,  2  Cor.  xi.  4.  xii.  12,  Col.  ii.  23,  1  Thess.  ii.  18. 


ADVERBS:   <Lr.  169 

(c)  Relative  Adverbs — Conditional,  Final,  etc. 

Above,  in  c.  Y.  (c),  we  had  occasion  to  mention  the 
principle,  which  runs  through  the  technical  and 
seemingly  arbitrary  rules  for  the  sequence  of  moods 
and  tenses  in  dependent  sentences,  that  almost  all 
their  main  types  are  particular  cases  of  the  relative 
sentence  :  that  as  the  rel.  pron.  can  be  used  in  causal, 
concessive,  or  final  sense,  or  the  like,  so  the  particles 
that  ordinarily  introduce  them  are  relative  particles 
— d>?  and  its  compounds,  and  6rt,  most  obviously, 
but  also  u/a,  and  even  et,  whether  this  be  a  mere 
phonetic  variant  of  77,  or  represent  another  relative 
root. 

In  view  of  this  principle,  we  have  been  able  to 
say  above  as  much  as  seems  needful,  for  the  purposes 
of  this  work,  of  the  way  that  these  (in  the  widest 
sense)  relative  particles  modify  the  structure  of 
sentences,  and  how  far  N.  T.  usage  deviates  in  tl-is 
respect  from  classical.  But  the  present  will  be  the 
proper  place  to  mention  what  particles  have  in  the 
N.  T.  a  new  or  an  extended  sense,  and  how  their  use 
there  affects  not  merely  the  form  but  the  meaning 
of  the  sentences  that  they  serve  to  introduce. 

In  the  chapter  referred  to,  we  noted  the  chief 
deviations  from  classical  usage  in  the  choice  of  moods 
and  tenses  associated  with  av  and  particles  embody- 
ing it.  While  these  deviations  are  not  unimportant 
as  regards  its  use  in  relative  clauses,  there  is  hardly 
any  irregularity  in  its  use  in  the  apodosis  to  con- 
ditional sentences.  Only,  whereas  the  use  of  the 
plupf.  indie,  with  av,  of  the  result  possible  from  an 
unrealised  hypothesis,  is  classical  though  rare,  in 


170   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Attic  the  tense  is  not  used  without  a  reason  *  :  while 
in  the  only  certain  N.  T.  case,  1  John  ii.  19,  there 
can  be  no  meaning  in  the  plupf.  as  distinct  from 
the  aor. — even  the  impf.  would  not  have  been  quite 
inappropriate.  (The  only  other  instances  of  the 
constr.  are  also  in  St.  John — xi.  21,  xiv.  7  :  in  neither 
is  the  reading  certain,  and  though  in  the  latter  it 
may  be  probable,  nothing  can  be  said  of  ^Setre  being 
treated  as  an  aor.).  The  rhetorical  omission  of  av  in 
sentences  like  Rom.  vii.  7,  Gal.  iv.  15  (ii.  21  is  some- 
what different :  that  XC  aTreOavtv  is  a  certain  fact — 
it  is  only  His  Death  being  So)pedV  that  depends  on  the 
hypothesis)  does  not  go  beyond  classical  precedent. 

We  observe  also,  that  av  is  never  used  with  infini- 
tives or  with  participles.  On  0)9  av  see  below,  p.  175. 

The  redundant  use  of  Kav  "if  it  be  [were]  but  .  .  ." 
in  Mark  vi.  56  (cf.  v.  28),  Acts  v.  15,  2  Cor.  xi.  16 
should  be  noticed,  but  is  not  unclassical :  see  e.g. 
Soph.  El.  1483.  'EdV,  which  in  pure  Greek  was 
always  a  conditional  particle,  is  in  Hellenistic  Greek 
(according  to  the  best  critics,  not  in  even  late  secular 
writers,  at  least  till  Byzantine  times)  used  inter- 
changeably with  av  after  rel.  pronouns  or  adverbs. 
This  is  a  mere  matter  of  form,  and  readings  often 
vary  between  the  two :  as  sometimes  in  the  converse 
case,  where  av  if  read  has  its  (late  Attic)  sense,  as 
a  shorter  form  of  ecu/.t  Bub  the  fact  that  lav  is  not 
strictly  confined  to  a  conditional  use  has  some  bearing 

*  E.g.  in  Plat.  Eutliypli'r.  14  c.  i/cavws  ch>  'fjdrj  wapa  aov  rty 
offioTyra  e/xeytia^/o?,  TJd-r}  explains  the  plupf.  :  it  is  not  only 
"  I  should  be  sure  to  have  learnt ;  "  but  "  I  should  Aatv.been 
sure  to  have  learnt  before  now." 

t  The  older  fy,  which  still  survives  in  Attic,  never  occurs  in 
the  N.  T. 


ADVERBS:   ci,    &v.  171 

upon  the  exegetical  question,  whether  it  ever  is  used 
as  a  temporal  particle.  It  is  argued  that  this* sense 
is  required  in  certain  passages  of  the  LXX.  (Isa.  xxiv. 
13,  Amos  vii.  2,  Tobit  iv.  3,  vi.  17,  perhaps  Ps.  xcv. 
7  (xciv.  8)  quoted  in  Heb.  iii.  7,  15),  and  of  St. 
John's  writings  Ev.  xii.  32,  xiv.  3,  1  Ep.  ii.  28* 
(true  text),  iii.  2).  We  cannot  here  examine  all 
these  in  detail ;  but  it  seems  on  the  whole  that  they 
are  too  small  a  foundation  to  establish  the  exceptional 
sense  of  the  word.  In  the  0.  T.  passages  it  is  likeliest 
that  the  translator,  rightly  or  wrongly,  meant  the 
sense  "  if :  "  in  the  former  passage  (at  least)  from 
Tobit,  and  in  those  from  St.  John,  that  sense  seems 
equally,  if  not  more,  appropriate;  in  some  the  con- 
ditional form  need  not  imply  uncertainty,  and  in 
others  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not. 

Besides  the  simple  d  and  eai/,  we  get  in  the  N.  T. 
the  compound  conditional  particles  ctye  (Rom.  v.  6  ?  ?, 
2  Cor.  v.  3?,  Gal.  iii.  4,  Eph.  iii.  2,  iv.  21,  Col.  i.  23), 
€L7T€p  (Rom.  iii.  30,  viii.  9,  17,  1  Cor.  viii.  5,  xv.  15, 
2  Cor.  v.  3  ?,  2  Thess.  i.  6,  1  Pet.  ii.  3  T.  R.),  and 
eai/Trcp  (Heb.  iii.  6,  T.  R.  14,  vi.  3).  It  is  plain 
that  €L7T€p  has  its  proper  force,  "  if,  as  is  the  fact," 
so  that  it  approximates  to  the  sense  of  eTretVep  (which 
appears  as  a  v.  I.  in  Rom.  iii.  30),  in  most  of  these 
passages  ;  and  we  can  see  the  reason  for  its  use  in 
the  others.  Rom.  viii.  17  gains  in  pathos,  when  we 
see  that  the  share  of  the  disciples  in  the  Master's 
sufferings  was  felt  to  be  a  fact  of  which  there  was 
no  question.  1  Cor.  xv.  15  is  more  forcible,  when 

*  The  v.  I.  orav  in  these  places  is  evidence,  no  doubt,  of 
what  transcribers  felt  to  be  the  easiest  sense — and  not  to  be 
the  sense  of  edi>. 


172   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  Apostle  throws  himself  so  fully  into  his  opponents' 
point' of  view  as  to  say  "  If,  as  is  admitted,  the  dead 
rise  not  "  :  though  at  the  same  time  he  half  corrects 
the  admission  by  apa,  "  if  we  find  the  unexpected 
result,  that  the  dead  rise  not."  Etye  seems  to  have 
the  same  force  as  eurep  in  the  two  passages  of  Eph., 
and  in  2  Cor.  if  it  be  read  there — so  too  in  Eom., 
for  if  we  read  it  with  Westcott  and  Hort,  we  must 
punctuate  as  they  do.  But  in  Gal.  it  is  used  of 
a  supposition  which  the  Apostle  is  loth  to  believe 
possible,  and  in  Col.  of  one  which,  he  apparently 
means  to  intimate,  is  not  certain.  We  see  therefore 
that  the  force  of  this  word  varies  a  good  deal,  though 
its  primary  meaning  "if  at  least "  or  "  if  indeed  " 
covers  all  its  uses.  Et  TTWS  is  used,  as  in  pure  Greek, 
for  "  to  see  if  .  .  .  "  "  in  hopes  that  " — c.  fut.  ind. 
in  Eom.  i.  10,  xi.  14,  Phil.  iii.  11  (unless  we  prefer 
to  regard  t":e  two  latter  as  aor.  subj.),  c.  opt.  in 
Acts  xxvdi.  12,  where  the  hopes  and  the  action 
prompted  by  them  are  only  related  historically. 
'Evret  and  eTreiS'/f,  arid  St.  Luke's  eTreiS^Vep,  are  used 
just  as  in  classical  Greek— the  first  having  the  sense 
"  else  "  ("for,  if  it  were  not  so  ")  several  times  in  St. 
Paul  and  Heb.  (Eom.  iii.  6,  xi.  6,  22,  1  Cor.  v.  10,  vii. 
14,  xiv.  16,  xv.  29,  Heb.  ix.  26,  x.  2).  Tap  also  pre- 
serves its  idiomatic  uses — epexegetical  in  Matt.  i.  18 
[T.  E.] — connecting  and  so  enlivening  the  progress  of 
a  dialogue  in  Matt,  xxvii.  23,  John  vii.  42,  Acts  viii. 
31,  xvi.  37,  xix.  35,  1  Cor.  xi.  22,  Phil.  i.  18,  where 
we  represent  it  by  the  interjectional  "  What  ?  "  or 
"  Why  " — the  latter  showing  *  that  we  also  feel  that 

*  We  are  helped  in  the  analysis  of  our  own  instincts  in  the 
nsj  of:  this  word,  by  the  fa  't  that  the  old  English  "  Forwhy  " 


ADVERBS:   ye,   ydp.  173 

there  is  something  of  causality  in  the  connexion. 
Perhaps  in  all  other  places  it  is  a  mistake  to  look 
for  more  than  its  common  sense,  as  giving  a  reason 
for  what  precedes ;  though  the  way  in  which  it 
accounts  for  it  is  sometimes  no  doubt  obscure,  as  in 
John  iv.  44.  In  some  places  the  connexion  is  at 
first  obscure,  not  from  subtlety  of  thought  but  from 
conciseness  of  expression :  e.g.  in  Mark  v.  42  (she 
walked,  for,  though  we  call  her  Ovydrpiov  and  TratoYov, 
she  was  not  a  mere  infant),  xvi.  4  (the  greatness  of 
the  stone  explains  both  the  expressed  anxiety  of  the 
women  about  its  removal,  and  their  implied  emotions 
at  the  sight  of  it). 

T€  is  rare  in  the  N.  T.  We  have  os  ye  in  a  causal 
sense  (like  quippe  qui]  in  Rom.  viii.  32,  Sia  ye  c.  ace., 
"  yet  because  of  .  .  ."in  Luke  xi.  8,  xviii.  5  :  else- 
where it  is  only  used  to  emphasise  or  modify  other 
particles. 

There  is  not  much  to  be  said  of  the  ET.  T.  use  of 
Stori,  which  from  its  primary  sense  "  for  this  cause, 
that  .  .  ."  sinks  into  that  of  our  "  because,"  but  is 
just  as  far  above  a  mere  equivalent  to  yap  as 
"because"  is  above  "  for."  Of  the  simple  on  the 
use  is  more  varied.  As  we  have  said  (p.  117),  its  use 
in  introducing  an  oratio  obliqua  is  somewhat  more 
extensive  than  in  older  Greek ;  and  no  very  sharp 
line  can  be  drawn  between  this  use,  and  that  in 
which  we  translate  it  "  because  "  instead  of  "  that." 
One  can  hardly  say  which  translation  is  more  appro- 

— almost  exactly  equivalent  to  the  Latin  quippe — is  now 
usually  written  and  read  as  if  it  were  a  translation  of  rl  ydp  ; 
without  material  injury  to  the  sense  of  passages  where  it 
occurs. 


174   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

priate  in  2  Thess.  iii.  7 — the  sense  is  "  how  ye  ought 
to  imitate  us,  in  our  conduct  of  orderly  behaviour." 
Similarly  in  John  ii.  18,  ix.  17,  on  is  "  in  relation 
to  the  fact  that  .  .  ." — or  at  least  in  these  places, 
and  also  vii.  35,  the  word  is  used  to  express  a  very 
vaguely  conceived  relation  between  the  main  sentence 
and  that  which  accounts  for  or  explains  what  is  said 
in  it.  A  more  definitely  explicable  use  of  the  same 
sort  is  Rom.  v.  8,  where  on  is  "6^  the  fact  that.  .  .  ." 

We  do  not  get  in  the  N.  T.  the  classical  but 
colloquial  on  TL ;  "  because  why  ?  "  like  wa  TL  ;  but  in 
(Mark  ii.  16?)  Luke  ii.  49,  Acts  v.  4,  9  we  have 
(as  often  in  the  LXX.)  TL  on  .  .  .  "  why  is  it 
that  .  .  .  1  " — explained  by  TL  -yeyovei/  ort,  John  xiv. 
22,  or  7-19  6  A.oyo9  ouros  ort,  Luke  iv.  36 — cf.  Matt, 
viii.  27  =  Mark  iv.  4L  OvX  OTL  "  not  that,"  in  John 
vi.  46,  vii.  22,  2  Cor.  i.  24,  iii.  5,  Phil.  iii.  12,  iv.  11, 
is  a  distinctively  1ST.  T.  phrase  :  for  the  classical  sense 
of  ovx  °rt  "  n°t  only/'  or  in  Plato  "  not  but  that  .  .  ." 
is  quite  different.  OvX  olov  on,  "  not  as  though," 
in  Rom.  ix.  6  is  nearly  but  not  quite  the  same. 

The  transposition  into  an  object  of  the  subject  of 
the  clause  introduced  by  OTL  (e.g.  Matt.  xxv.  24),  is 
very  common  in  the  N.  T.,  and  not  rare  in  Attic. 
But  the  constr.  is  worth  mentioning,  as  its  principle 
serves  to  explain  the  rather  harsher  constr.  of  Acts 
v.  26,  Gal.  iv.  11,  and  even  Rev.  iii.  9. 

Of  0)9,  the  most  remarkable  uses  are  ws  &v  c.  inf. 
in  2  Cor.  x.  9,  the  sense  of  <Ls  av  eK<£o/3etv  being 
apparently  that  of  the  Attic  a)o~7re/oavet  lK<f>o/3oLr}v — - 
with  this  cf.  a)9  lav  c.  subj.  in  1  Thess.  ii.  7  :  and 
<I)9  OTL  in  2  Cor.  v.  19,  xi.  21,  2  Thess.  ii.  2,  of  which 
we  can  only  say  the  force  is  "  as  though  :  "  we  cannot 


ADVERBS:    a>s,    av,    OUTWS.  175 

explain  the  second  passage,  as  we  might  the  first  arid 
third,  as  a  fusion  of  u)j  OFTOS  and  ort  ^v,  of  a>?  ei/ecrrojros 
and  on  eve'orT/Kej/.  The  temporal  use  of  o>s,  very  common 
in  SS.  Luke  and  John,  is  perhaps  confined  to  them  : 
in  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  we  must  omit  the  clause,  and  in 
Mark  ix.  21  the  reading  is  not  certain.  St.  Paul 
however  has  o>?  oV  for  "  whensoever  "  in  Rom.  xv.  24, 
1  Cor.  xi.  34,  Phil.  ii.  23. 

cOs  av  c.  impf.  ind.  in  1  Cor.  xii.  2  has  been  men- 
tioned already  (p.  111).  eOs  is  used  c.  inf.  in  doubtful 
but  not  impossible  readings  in  Luke  ix.  52,  Acts 
xx.  24,  and  in  the  phrase  o>s  en-os  eureti/  in  Heb.  vii. 
9  only :  c.  ptcp.  fairly  often  in  SS.  Peter  (both  Epp.), 
Paul,  Luke,  and  Heb.,  but  elsewhere  only  Matt.  vii. 
29  =  Mark  i.  22,  James  ii.  12. 

Perhaps  this  may  be  the  best  place  to  notice  the 
use  of  OVTCOS,  the  correlative  to  (Ls,  almost  in  the  sense 
quw  cum  ita,  sint  (essent)  :  Acts  vii.  8,  xxviii.  14? 
1  Cor.  xiv.  25,  1  Thess.  iv.  17 — possibly  also  1  Cor. 
ix.  24,  compare  the  use  in  Acts  xx.  11.  "Oo-re  has 
the  same  constructions  as  in  classical  Greek.  But  the 
constr.  c.  indie.  "  so  that  (the  result)  is  or  was  (at- 
tained) "  is  become  rare  (John  iii.  16,  Gal.  ii.  13  only), 
compared  with  the  case  where  (Scrre  comes  at  the 
beginning  of  a  sentence,  virtually  meaning  "  where- 
fore," and  often  followed  by  an  imper.  Moreover 
the  constr.  c.  inf.,  properly  consecutive,  though  differ- 
ing from  that  c.  indie,  as  our  "so  as  to  .  .  .  "  from 
"  so  that  ..."  approximates  to  a  final  sense  in  a 
few  places — Matt,  xxvii.  1,  and  still  more  Luke  iv.  29 
(true  text)  being  the  clearest  instances.  In  both 
these  places  there  is  a  v.  I.,  showing  that  early  scribes 
felt  the  final  sense  to  be  intended,  and  Luke  ix.  52 


176   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

may  be  a  similar  case  :  xx.  20  hardly,  for  tliough 
wore  is  the  right  text,  the  final  sense  has  already 
been  expressed  by  !W,  and  a  consecutive  wo-rc  is  in 
place  after  it. 

"OTTOOS  is  only  used  in  final  sentences  (taking,  it 
must  be  said,  a  wide  view  of  what  are  such  :  for  it 
shares  the  lax  use  of  u/a)  except  in  Luke  xxiv.  20, 
where  it  is  "  how,"  introducing  an  oratio  obliqua. 

We  have  referred  already  (p.  117)  to  the  extension 
in  the  IN".  T.  of  the  use  of  ??/a :  we  now  have  to 
examine  the  nature  and  the  limits  of  that  extension. 
We  note  that  the  classical  usage  with  past  tenses  of 
the  inclic.,  of  an  object  now  hopeless,  has  disappeared : 
and  it  is  doubtful  (see  p.  109)  whether  the  corrupt  use 
with  the  present  indie.,  found  in  the  less  educated 
Greek  ecclesiastical  writers,  has  yet  come  in.  The 
regular  constr.  is  c.  subj.,  occasionally  c.  fut.  indie., 
which  in  form  and  meaning  is  akin  thereto  :  the 
main  question  is,  how  far  has  Iva  advanced  towards 
its  use  in  modern  Greek,  where  (in  the  apocopated 
form  va)  this  word  c.  subj.  has  superseded  the 
infin.  ? 

Certainly  it  cannot  be  contended  that  it  can  be 
used  in  all  cases  where  it  might  in  modern  Greek, 
where  the  English  that  or  the  French  que  might 
represent  it.  The  limits  of  its  use  would  far  more 
nearly  coincide  with  those  of  the  Latin  ut :  but  as 
ut  c.  subj.  can  be  used  in  a  consecutive  or  ecbatic 
sense,  we  have  still  to  ask  whether  Iva  can.  Yery 
often,  we  have  it  where  the  final  sense  is  obviously 
unimpaired  :  very  often,  where  the  final  sense  is  not 
obvious,  but  where  to  deny  its  existence  is  only  a 
piece  of  exegetical  laziness,  or  incapacity  to  conceive 


ADVERBS:   Iva.  177 

things  from  a  point  of  view  not  natural  to  us,  perhaps 
because  too  spiritual  for  us.  Of  this  sort  is  St. 
Matthew's  Iva  TrXrjpuOr)  TO  pyOev,  and  the  correspond- 
ing phrases  of  St.  John  :  so  too  is  surely  Luke  ix.  45, 
which  presents  less  difficulty  than  John  xii.  40 :  and 
with  which  cf .  1  Thess.  v.  4.  But  sometimes,  beyond 
doubt,  Iva  is  used  where  the  final  element  in  the 
sense  is  very  much  weakened — sometimes  where  it  is 
hard  to  deny  that  it  has  altogether  vanished. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  unnatural  that  verbs  of 
desiring — both  $e'Aa),  and  such  as  express  entreaty, 
or  even  command — should  have  their  "  object "  ex- 
pressed by  the  same  constr.  as  the  "  object "  of  the 
action  of  other  verbs.  In  Matt.  iv.  3  ct-n-e,  Iva  .  .  . 
yevwvrai,  is  strictly  "  Speak,  that  these  stones  may 
become  bread :  "  it  practically  means,  "  Command 
them  to  become  .  .  .  but  as  these  are  equivalent,  we 
can  understand  xvi.  20  Stco-retXaro  (or  eTrcrt^o-ev)  .  .  . 
Iva  ///tySevt  etTroxrti/.  In  vii.  12  we  might  translate 
"  whatsoever  things  ye  desire,  that  men  may  do  them 
to  you  :  "  this  in  the  same  way  prepares  us  for  Mark 
vi.  25,  and  even  for  Matt,  xviii.  14. 

Almost  easier  is  it  to  see  the  final  sense  in  TrotetV 
Iva.  In  Rev.  xiii.  15,  "  to  cause  that  they  be  killed  " 
is,  in  regard  to  the  agent's  attitude,  much  the  same 
as  to  order  that  they  be  killed,  or  to  contrive  that 
they  may  be  :  and  again  it  may  be  uncertain,  and  is 
indifferent,  whether  Troitlv  Iva  or  OiXtiv  Iva  is  the  constr. 
of  Matt.  xx.  33  =  Mark  x.  51  =  Luke  xviii.  41.  So  in 
1  Cor.  iv.  2,  "  that  a  man  be  found  faithful  "  is  the 
"  object "  of  the  seeking. 

Arid  then  it  is  impossible  to  draw  a  line  between 
cases  like  these,  and  constructions  like  that  with 

12 


178   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

o-vfjufrepci  in  Matt.  -V.  29,  30,  t/cavos  et/xt  viii.  8,  apKtrov 
x.  25  (cf.  John  v.  7),  etc.  :  see  the  series  of  passages 
marked  *  in  Bruder  s.  v.  So  then  one  might  almost 
as  fitly  add  a  few  more — e.g.  1  John  v.  20,  2  John 
6,  and  the  many  cases  of  Sowai  [Va,  more  or  less 
like  TToteti/  tra,  in  the  Apoc.  :  Acts  viii.  19  again 
connects  itself  with  these. 

We  observe  that  iva  is  very  frequent  in  (all)  St. 
John's  writings  ;  he  only  uses  OTTOOS  and  wore  once  each, 
(Ev.  xi.  57,  iii.  16),  while  this  word  has  with  him 
some  peculiar  extensions  of  use,  both  as  to  form  and 
sense.  He  often  has  the  elliptical  oAA'  Iva  (i.  8,  ix. 
3,  xi.  52,  xiii.  18,  xiv.  31,  xv.  25),  to  which  the  only 
complete  parallel  elsewhere  is  Mark  xiv.  49,  and 
perhaps  Eph.  v.  27.*  Notice  other  elliptic  uses  of 
the  word,  marked  (as  these  are)  *  *  in  Bruder :  also 
Gal.  ii.  10  (as  well  as  9)  should  be  included.  Philem. 
19  may  be  explained  as  a  Latinism — the  sense  is 
just  ne  dicam :  but  2  Cor.  ii.  5  is  just  the  same  constr. 
We  may  distinguish  one  class  of  cases  as  epexegetical 
— of  which  we  may  take  as  subordinate  types  (1) 
cases  like  Luke  i.  43,  John  xv.  8,  where  we  get  TOVTO 
Iva  directly  connected  (unde  hoc  mihi  ut  veniat  .  .  . 
Yulg.  Luc.  1.  c.).  (2)  John  iv.  34,  and  others  where 
the  clause  with  Iva  serves  to  explain  the  nature  of  a 
subst. :  3  John  4,  is  no  doubt  a  (somewhat  elliptical) 
example  of  this.  (3)  Intermediate  are  cases  like 
John  vi.  29,  2  John  6,  where  TOVTO  stands  so  to  speak 
in  apposition  to  the  Iva  clause,  to  enable  it  to  stand 
as  subject  to  the  sentence  identifying  it  with  a  subst. 

*  2  Thess.  iii.  9  is  quite  normal,  "not  because  .  .  .  but  in 
order  that  .  .  .  ,  giving  a  wrong  and  a  ri^ht  way  of  account- 
ing for  the  fact  stated  just  before. 


ADVERBS:   Iva.  179 

Now  that  we  have  recognised  that  Iva  can  be  used 
in  other  than  a  strictly  final  sense,  we  can  consider 
on  their  merits  alternative  schemes  of  interpretation : 
e.g.  in  1  John  iv.  17  we  see  that  grammatically 
Iva  .  .  .  Kjoicrewg  may  be  epexeg.  of  ev  TOVTO>,  though  if 
we  prefer  to  take  Iva  in  its  final  sense,  TOVTO),  may 
refer  to  what  goes  before,  or  to  on  .  .  .  rovro)  in  the 
next  clause.  So  with  John  viii.  56,  Rev.  xiv.  13. 

For  the  special  use  of  Iva  in  entreaties,  like  the 
classical  OTTWS,  see  p.  109.  The  use  in  1  Cor.  i.  31  is 
curious  but  intelligible :  it  is  of  course  to  be  explained 
as  an  ellipsis.  ''Iva  is  not  really  followed  by  an  imper. 
instead  of  a  subj.,  but  the  sense  is  "  that  (things  may 
be)  as  the  Scripture  says  they  ought  to  be,"  and 
then  follows  the  quotation,  telling  how  that  is. 

Of  relative  adverbs  of  place,  and  their  correlatives, 
one  whole  series  had  disappeared,  viz.  those  relating 
to  motion  to  a  place,  ot,  oVot  K.T.\.  :  just  as  in  modern, 
or  at  least  in  colloquial  English,  it  is  an  affectation 
to  say  "  whither  "  instead  of  "  where."  The  disuse 
is  however  less  consistent  in  Greek :  wSe  *  and  the 
rarer  ivOa&e  serve  for  both  "  hither "  and  "  here," 
while  IvravOa  has  disappeared,  but  evrevOei/  not :  ZvOev 
is  used  twice  demonstratively  (Matt.  xvii.  20,  Luke 
xvi.  26,  true  text).  'E*et  can  have  the  sense  of 
"thither"  (Matt.  ii.  22,  xvii.  20,  etc.);  but  e^etcre 
occurs  twice  in  Acts — once  (xxi.  3)  with  something  of 

*  *fiSe  in  the  N.  T.  has  never  its  oldest  sense  of  "thus." 
The  sense  "  hither  "  is  first  found  in  Sophocles  (and  that  in 
passages  where  something  of  a  colloquial  use  would  not  be  out 
of  place)  :  "  here "  not  before  Theocritus.  In  1  Cor.  iv.  2, 
Rev.  xiii.  10,  18,  xiv.  12,  xvii.  9.  the  sense  seems  to  be 
"  herein  " — a  metaphorical  extension  of  the  latest  local  mean- 
ing* 


180   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

its  proper  force,  but  in  xxii.  5  this  cannot  be  traced 
— even  eKet$ei/  would  have  been  more  appropriate. 
The  pregnant  use  of  this  last  word  with  the  art.  is 
found  in  Luke  xvi.  26  only,  and  there  is  at  least 
doubtful.  "QOsv  is  used  both  in  a  local  sense  (Matt, 
xii.  44  =  Luke  xi.  24,  Matt.  xxv.  24,  26,  Acts  xiv.  26, 
xxviii.  13,  Heb.  xi.  19),  and  in  an  illative,  "from 
which "  coming  to  mean  "  for  which  cause " — so 
Matt.  xiv.  7,  nearly  so  1  John  ii.  18,  and  so  five 
times  in  Heb. 

Of  other  illatives,  Sio  (twice  in  1  Cor.  SioTrep)  alone 
is  a  rel.  in  form  :  of  it  we  have  only  to  note  its  rarity 
in  the  Gospels  (Matt,  xxvii.  8,  Luke  i.  35,  vii.  7  only), 
and  its  total  absence  from  St.  John.  But  we  may 
mention  in  this  connexion  the  other  N.  T.  illatives — 
ovv  (once,  John  xviii.  37,  ov/cow),  apa,  TOIVW,  roiyapow. 
As  regards  the  first,  it  is  impossible  to  draw  a  very 
sharp  line  between  its  strictly  illative  use,  and  that 
where  it  is  merely  continuative,  like  our  "  then  "  or 
"  so."  It  is  this  latter  use  that  is  so  frequent  in 
St.  John ;  perhaps  elsewhere  the  passage  where  it  is 
most  fully  developed  is  Luke  xx.  29  (for  in  several 
places  in  St.  Luke  ow  disappears  from  critical  texts)  : 
while  we  have  transitional  cases  in  Matt,  xxvii.  17, 
Mark  xii.  6,  etc.  And  this  continuative  use  passes, 
through  sentences  like  Luke  iii.  7,  into  what  may  be 
called  the  resumptive,  of  which  we  have  an  instance 
in  Rom.  xii.  1,  still  more  plainly  in  1  Cor.  viii.  4, 
where  the  thread  of  ver.  1  is  resumed  after  a  digres- 
sion, whether  we  make  it  an  actual  parenthesis  or 
not. 

The  sense  of  apa,  as  in  classical  Greek,  is  at  least 
as  much  that  of  discovery  (often  of  surprise)  as  of 


ADVERBS:   apa.  181 

inference  :  see  on  the  one  hand  Matt.  vii.  20  (where 
it  is  emphasised  by  ye),  2  Cor.  v.  15,  on  the  other 
Matt.  xii.  28= Luke  xi.  20.  Luke  xi.  48,  Acts  xi.  18, 
show  how  one  passes  into  the  other,  "  it  follows,  little 
as  you  may  think  it,"  or  "  little  as  we  had  expected 
it."  So  where  apa  stands  after  an  interrogative 
(Matt.  xix.  25,  Mark  iv.  41,  Luke  i.  66,  and,  in  an 
indirect  question,  xxii.  23)  it  gives  a  tone  of  surprise 
or  anxiety :  and  so  in  hypothetical  sentences,  as  Acts 
viii.  22,  xvii.  27  (where  d  apa  is  practically = si  forte, 
but  it  is  utterly  misleading  to  say  that  apa  means 
forte}.  All  these  modifications  of  sense  are  classical ; 
but  not  so  the  N.  T.  usage  of  putting  the  illative  apa 
at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence,  still  less  the  way 
that  St.  Paul  emphasises  it  by  the  combination  op  ovv 
(often  in  Romans,  and  in  Gal.  vi.  10,  Eph.  ii.  19, 
1  Thess.  v.  6,  2  Thess.  ii.  15).  Heb.  xiii.  13  has  no 
known  precedent  except  in  the  LXX.  for  roivvv  at  the 
beginning  of  a  sentence ;  but  in  late  secular  Greek 
it  was  allowed  there  :  for  roi-yapovv  it  is  the  correct 
place. 

(c/)  Negative  and  Interrogative  Particles. 

The  two  negative  particles  ov  and  /^,  and  the 
whole  series  of  their  compounds  and  derivatives 
(ovSet's,  /x7/8ets  /c.r.X.),  are  in  use  in  the  N.  T.  as  in 
classical  Greek,  and  are  used,  generally  speaking, 
upon  the  same  principles.  But  there  is  much  more 
laxity  in  the  observance  of  the  rules  for  their  use, 
and  the  rules  that  are  or  tend  to  be  observed  are  not 
absolutely  the  same  :  there  are  larger  classes  of  cases 
where  either  negative  can  be  used  with  little  or  no 
difference  to  the  sense ;  and  there  are  uses  for  which 


182   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

one  particle  only  was  appropriate,  on  which  we  find 
that  the  other  has  encroached. 

Thus  in  Mark  xii.  14  the  use  of  the  two  particles 
is  quite  clear  and  correct.  The  difference  of  mood 
in  the  verb  corresponds  to  the  difference  of  the  nega- 
tive :  "Is  it  lawful  ...  or  [is  it]  not 2  are  we  to 
give,  or  are  we  not  to  give  ?  "  So  in  1  John  v.  16, 
"  a  sin  not  unto  death  "  is  part  of  the  supposition  : 
in  the  next  verse,  the  existence  of  such  a  sin  is  cate- 
gorically affirmed  :  and  so  we  have  /JLTJ  in  the  former 
clause,  and  ov  in  the  latter. 

But  when  we  compare  John  iii.  18  with  1  John 
v.  10,  we  fail  to  see  any  reason,  either  in  the  grammar 
or  in  the  sense,  why  we  should  have  ore  /AT)  7r€tr«rreuKCj> 
in  the  former,  and  on  ov  TreTnVreuKev  in  the  latter. 
And  in  fact  it  is  a  mistake  to  look  to  any  difference 
of  sense  to  explain  the  choice  of  different  particles : 
the  true  explanation  is  simply,  that  whereas  in  a 
classical  writer  we  should  certainly  have  had  on  OVK, 
in  late  [e.g.,  Lucian]  (not  only  in  Hellenistic)  Greek 
the  tendency  prevailed  to  use  JJLIJ  after  causal  par- 
ticles. In  the  N.  T.  it  is  still  exceptional :  but  we 
get  it  in  Heb.  ix.  17.  after  eVei,  as  well  as  in  John 

O  T  * 

1.  c.  after  on. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  all  but  universal  rule 
in  pure  Greek,  that  in  conditional  sentences  the  nega- 
tive shall  be  pr}.  The  only  recognised  exceptions 
are,  where  the  et  is  virtually  equivalent  to  a  non- 
conditional  particle  (e.g.  in  the  phrase  $aiy/,a£a>  et, 
where  OVK  is  sometimes  but  not  always  used),  or 
where  the  negative  is  inseparably  connected  with 
a  single  word,  and  belongs  to  it  rather  than  to  the 
sentence;  e.g.  Soph.  Aj.  1131,  d  TOVS  Oavovras  OVK  eas 


NEGATIVES:   oi,   /4  183 

v,  "  if  thou  forbid  to  bury."  We  get  no  clear 
instance  (though  John  x.  35,  Heb.  xii.  25,  2  Pet.  ii.  4 
might  pass  for  such)  of  the  former  sort  in  the  N".  T., 
but  Luke  xii.  26,  et  ovSe  eXaxwrrov  Supacrdc,  2  Cor. 
xii.  11,  et  Kol  ovoev  ct/u,  fall  under  the  latter.  So  in 
the  use  of  participles  with  the  art,  rj  ov  rtWovcra, 
fj  OVK  (oS&owa  in  Isa.  liv.  1,  quoted  in  Gal.  iv.  27, 
and  T^V  OVK  -YjyaTr^^v^v  in  Rom.  ix.  25  :  similarly  ol 
OVK  yjXerjfJitvoL  in  1  Pet.  ii.  10. 

Perhaps  we  ought  to  distinguish  from  this,  as 
another  case  in  which  OVK  is  admissible,  even  in  the 
purest  Greek,  that  where,  though  the  negative  does 
not  coalesce  with  any  one  word  into  a  privative 
phrase,  it  is  placed,  for  rhetorical  or  other  reasons, 
in  close  association  with  the  word  which  it  denies, 
and  at  considerable  distance  from  the  conditional 
particle,  or  equivalent  form.  Thus  in  Thuc.  III.  Iv.  4, 
et  6°  avrocrnji/cu  'A^r/vatW  OVK  ?7$eX?ycra//,€i/,  it  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  we  say  that  ov  0e'Xetv  coalesce  into  one 
idea,  nolle,  like  OVK  lav :  if  the  order  had  been 
different,  even  without  separating  the  negative  from 
the  verb,  we  should  probably  have  had  et  Se  //,?)  ^$eX?J- 
(ra/xei/  car'  'AOrjvaiwv  a,7roaT7}vai. 

On  this  principle  we  may  justify  the  use  of  OVK  in 
Luke  xiv.  26,  xvi.  11,  12,  31,  John  iii.  12,  v.  47, 
x.  35,  Rom.  viii.  9,  xi.  21,  1  Tim  iii.  5,  v.  8,  2  Pet. 
ii.  4,  2  John  10.  And  in  other  passages  one  might 
find  some  other  plea:  e.g.  in  1  Cor.  xv.  13  et  Se 
" 'Ai/ao-Tcurts  veKpaii/  OVK  eo-rtv  "  gives  a  quotation,  or 
at  least  what  is  treated  as  one,  of  what  some  among 
the  Corinthians  said  (ver.  12)  :  and  the  principle 
might,  with  a  little  stretching,  cover  the  repeated 
instances  of  et  ov  that  follow. 


184  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Again,  it  seems  to  be  the  use  of  late  but  pure 
Greek  writers  to  use  ov  where  there  is  a  marked 
antithesis  with  the  apodosis,  or  with  a  positive  clause 
balancing  the  negative  one — "  if  not  one  thing, 
then  another,"  or  "  if  not  one  thing  but  the  other, 
then."  .  .  .  This  would  explain  Luke  xi.  8,  xviii.  4, 
1  Cor.  ix.  2,  James  ii.  11,  besides  applying  to  several 
of  the  passages  given  above.  Similarly  where  a 
negative  clause,  equivalent  to  a  ptcp.,  comes  after 
the  art.  in  Rom.  iv.  12,  rots  OVK  CK  7re/HTo//,?}s  /xdi/ov, 
aXXa  K.T.A.  :  here  but  for  the  antithesis,  we  should 
certainly  have  had  fjurj.  (In  Eph.  v.  4  TO,  OVK  avrj- 
KOVTCL  is  a/".  I.  :  and  even  that  is  in  a  negative  clause 
followed  by  aXXd.) 

We  believe  that  in  all  these  cases  there  is  a  real 
reason  for  the  use  of  ov  :  but  it  is  hardly  the  right 
way  to  regard  them,  to  treat  them  (as  we  must  treat 
such  parallel  cases  as  we  find  in  classical  Greek)  as 
exceptions  to  the  general  rule  requiring  et  /JLTJ.  For 
if  we  did  so,  the  exceptions  to  the  rule  would  out- 
number the  examples  of  it.  Et  pr)  is  used  very  freely 
in  the  N.  T. — more  extensively  than  in  pure  Greek  : 
but  its  general  use  is  as  a  compound  particle  used 
after  negatives,  almost =7rX^i/,  "except:"  sometimes 
in  St.  Paul  helped  out  by  CKTOS  (1  Cor.  xiv.  5,  xv.  2,  1 
Tim.  v.  19).  As  introducing  a  real  conditional  sentence, 
we  meet  it  only  in  Matt.  xxiv.  22  =  Mark  xiii.  20, 
John  ix.  33,  xv.  22,  24,  xviii.  30,  xix.  11,  Rom.  vii. 
7,  ix.  29  (from  LXX.),  2  Cor.  xii.  13,  1  Tim.  vi.  3. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  d  ov,  besides  the 
cases  above  enumerated,  and  without  any  of  the 
reasons  given  for  those  applying,  in  Matt.  xxvi.  24 
(=Mark  xiv.  21),  42,  Mark  xi.  26  [T.R.],  John 


NEGATIVES:    et  or,   et  /w}.  185 

x.  37,.  Acts  xxv.  11  (ovSeV),  1  Cor.  vii.  9,  xi.  6,  xvi. 
22,  2  Thess.  iii.  10,  14. 

Can  we  trace  any  principle  here  ?  If  not,  it  might 
be  worth  while  to  remark  that  about  half  the 
instances  of  et  ^  are  in  a  single  writer  :  and  we 
might  say  that  et  OVK  is  the  rule,  and  et  ^  the  ex- 
ception, in  all  N.  T.  writers  but  St.  John.  But  on 
examining  the  instances,  we  shall  see  that  in  all 
the  places  where  ^  is  used  except  the  last,  it  is  used 
with  a  past  tense  of  the  indie,  of  an  unrealised  sup- 
position :  in  all  where  OVK  is  used,  either  the  verb  is 
in  a  primary  tense  of  the  indie.,  or  the  sense  is  "if, 
as  was  the  fact "  (Rom.  xi.  21,  Heb.  xii.  25,  2  Pet.  ii. 
4),  or  one  of  the  reasons  stated  above  applies  (Luke 
xvi.  11,  12). 

This  then  appears  to  be  the  rule  of  N.  T.  usage — 
that  et  with  the  indie,  almost  always  takes  ov,  except 
with  a  past  tense  in  the  sense  specified.  'Eav  however 
always  takes  /AT;  c.  pres.  as  well  as  c.  aor.  subj.  And 
though  ct  OVK  is  a  deviation  from  classical  usage,  it 
may  admit  of  justification  on  the  principles  of  the 
classical  language.  If  we  resolve  the  conditional 
particle  into  a  relative  one,  et  will  be  "  in  the  case  in 
which,"  .  .  .  and  lav  "  in  any  case  in  which  "  .  .  .  : 
and  of  these  relative  sentences,  the  one  would  regu- 
larly take  OVK  and  the  other  py.  In  practice,  how- 
ever, we  must  not  expect  always  to  find  an  assignable 
difference  of  meaning  between  et  OVK  and  lav  p,rj,  any 
more  than  between  the  simple  et  and  lav  :  compare 
Matt.  vi.  15,  lav  0€  pi]  dc^re,  with  Mark  xi.  26,  et  Se 
{yxets  OVK  a</>tere — which,  though  not  part  of  the 
genuine  text  of  St.  Mark,  belongs  to  the  oldest  form 
of  the  "  Western  Text,"  and  shows  what  were  the 


\W  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

natural  variants  of  language  among  people  who  still 
possessed  evangelical  sayings  in  a  plastic  form.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  may  notice  Matt.  xxvi.  42,  where 
we  get  d  ov  and  cav  /XT;  in  the  same  sentence.  Here 
there  is  a  real  difference  between  the  two,  illustrated 
by  the  necessary  difference  in  a  Latin  or  English 
translation. 

In  the  elliptical  sense  "if  not,"  "otherwise,"  we 
always  have  ei  Se  /XT;  (or  ei  Se  /XT;  ye,  everywhere 
except  in  SS.  Mark  and  John).  It  is  noticeable,  that 
in  most  of  the  passages  (7  or  8  as  against  Luke  x.  6, 
xiii.  9,  John  xiv.  2,  11,  Rev.  ii.  5,  16:  Luke  xiv.  32 
is  ambiguous),  the  supposition  which  /XT;  excludes  is 
itself  a  negative  one. 

Except  in  this  case  of  et  c.  indie.,  the  tendency  of 
late  Greek  is  certainly  to  extend  the  use  of  /XT;  rather 
than  to  contract  it.  We  may  say  that  in  classical 
Greek  OVK  is  used  where  there  is  a  categorical  nega- 
tion, even  in  dependent  clauses — in  relative  sentences, 
with  participles,  or  the  like :  only  that  /XT;  can  be 
used  where  there  is  any  special  reason,  e.g.  to  give  a 
conditional  or  (sometimes)  a  causal  sense.  In  later 
Greek,  the  rule  and  the  exception  are  the  other  way : 
the  rule  is,  in  fact,  almost  the  same  as  in  modern 
Greek,  where  we  are  told  that  /XT;  is  the  particle 
ordinarily  used  with  subjunctives  and  participles 
(Geldart's  Guide  to  Modern  Greek,  p.  254)  :  while  in 
relative  sentences  /XT;  can  be  used,  even  with  the  indie. 
— Tit.  i.  11,  2  Pet.  i.  9.  The  general  practice,  how- 
ever, in  relative  sentences  is  to  use  ov  c.  indie.,  and 
/XT;  when  the  verb  is  in  the  subj.  with  av :  cf.  Matt, 
xiii.  12,  Mark  iv.  25  with  Luke  viii.  18.  We  have 
always  OVK  in  the  relative  sentence  that  expresses 


ov,  w,   WITH  PARTICIPLES.  187 

universality  by  a  double  negative — ovSets  ooris  ov,  and 
the  like :  so  Acts  xix.  35,  Heb.  xii.  7.     Notice  how- 
ever the  double  ov  //,?/  in  Mark  xiii.  2 — not  Matt.  xxiv. 
2  true  text,  though  Luke  xxi.  6  alone  has  the  normal 
constr.     With    participles,  we   may   say    that  ^  is 
always  used  when  the  ptcp.  is  equivalent  to  a  con- 
ditional clause,  almost  always  when  it  is  causal,  and 
mostly  when  it  is  equivalent  to  a  mere  relative  :  but 
ov  sometimes  in  the  last  case,  and  generally  where 
the  sense  is    concessive.     So   in   modern    Greek    o^i 
(=ov^t  or  ov)  Swa/xevos  is  "  though  he  could  not,"  but 
py  oWa/xevos  "  because  he  could  not "  (Geldart,  p.  73). 
We  have  instances  of  ov  with  participles  in  Matt, 
xxii.  11  (cf.  12),  Gal.  iv.  8,  Col.  ii.  19,  Heb.  xi.  1,  35, 
where   it    seems   to   be   used    simply    as   being   the 
natural  negative.     In  Luke  vii.  6,  ov  /x,a/cpai/,  in  Acts 
xxvii.  20  OVK  6\tyov,  are  virtually  one  word — we  have 
/jirjTe  .  .  .  e/vK/xui/oVruv   just    before    the   latter.       In 
1  Cor.  ix.  26  we  may  say  something  of  the  same  sort — 
the  sense  is,  "I  box,  as  striking — not  the  air  (but  my 
enemy)  : "  or  the  parallelism  with  o>s  OVK  d&jAws  may 
be  explanation  enough.     In  Luke  vi.  42,  Acts  vii.  5, 
xxviii.    17,    there   may    be   the   difference    of    sense 
required  by  the  modern  rule :  so  in  Acts  xvii.    27, 
where  the  concessive  sense  of  the  ptcp.  is  put  beyond 
question   by   Katye :     In   1   Pet.  i.  8  we  get  both  ov 
and  pr}  with  participles,  and  cannot  doubt  the  differ- 
ence of  meaning :  ov  OVK  tSovres  is  "  whom  though  ye 
have    not    seen,"    ets    ov  .   .  .  Trio-revovTcs    "  in  whom 
because   ye   believe."     But   instead   of   leaving  these 
three  last  words    alone,  the  Apostle   expands  them 
into  an  antithesis,  which  in  classical  Greek  (see  p.  167) 
would  have  been  expressed  by  something  like 


188   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

/*,€!/  a/on,  TTLO-TCVOVTCS  6V  i  and  as  the  negative  introduces, 
not  merely  the  opoWcs  but  the  whole  antithesis,  it 
takes  the  form  suitable  to  the  sense  of  Trio-revoi/res, 
its  more  emphatic  member.  In  John  x.  12,  1  Cor. 
iv.  14,  2  Cor.  iv.  8,  9,  Phil.  iii.  3,  ov  may  be  explained 
by  the  existence  of  an  antithesis  such  as  was  noted 
above  in  hypothetical  sentences.  But  we  get  p.rj  [and 
compounds]  even  in  antithesis,  as  Mark  v.  26,  Acts 
ix.  7,  2  Cor.  vi.  9,  10 — where  there  seems  no  differ- 
ence of  principle  or  even  of  tone  from  iv.  8,  9 — and 
constantly  elsewhere  (e.g.  Luke  xviii.  2),  where  it  is 
not  possible  to  trace  anything  causal  in  the  sense, 
as  no  doubt  we  may  in  Matt,  xviii.  25,  xxii.  25,  29, 
Acts  v.  7,  ix.  26,  xii.  19,  xvii.  6.  The  rule  seems  a 
sound  one,  that  where  we  get  ^  with  a  ptcp.  it  does 
not  need  accounting  for,  but  that  where  we  get  ov 
with  one  we  ought  to  look  for  some  reason  for  its 
use;  though  it  is  too  much  to  say  that  there  must 
always  be  some  assignable  reason  to  be  found.  It 
agrees  with  this  principle — that  jjirj  is  used  with  a 
ptcp.  where  ov  would  be  with  a  verb — that  when  we 
have  a  ptcp.  constructed  with  the  verb  substantive, 
the  negative  is  OVK  or  ju^,  according  as  it  belongs  to  the 
verb  or  the  ptcp.  See  on  the  one  hand  Luke  vi.  43, 
xii.  6,  xxiii.  53,  John  iii.  24,  Rom.  iii.  12,  2  Cor.  ii.  17, 
James  iii.  15;  on  the  other  Luke  i.  20,  xiii.  11,  Acts 
ix.  9.  The  last  passage  is  especially  noticeable,  be- 
cause ov  follows  immediately,  with  verbs. 

As  in  pure  Greek,  the  ptcp.  with  the  art.  regularly 
takes  //,?7 :  what  exceptions  there  are  have  been  ex- 
plained above.  Even  in  Rom.  iv.  12  we  should 
prob.  have  had  py,  had  ovo-t  been  expressed.  Where 
the  ptcp.  depends  upon  a  final  clause  (e.g.  1  Cor.  vii. 


NEGATIVES  WITH  INFINITIVE.       189 

29),  JJLTJ  is  equally  necessary.  Yet  we  get  ov^  in  con- 
nexion— not,  it  is  true,  immediate — with  an  imper. 
in  1  Pet.  iii.  3,  and  ovSe  with  a  final  sentence  in  Rev. 
ix.  4.  These  are,  of  course,  irregular. 

For  the  inf.  also  is  associated  with  ^  in  the  N.  T. 
even  where  it  would  not  be  in  classical  Greek.  When 
it  serves  to  express  an  or.  obi.,  we  should  expect,  in 
general,  the  same  negative  to  be  used  as  would  be  in 
the  or.  recta — OVK  in  categorical  speeches,  ^77  in  pro- 
hibitory. M?7  therefore  is  necessary  in  Matt.  ii.  12, 
Luke  v.  14,  1  Cor.  v.  9,  11,  etc;  but  is  hardly  classical 
in  Luke  ii.  26,  xx.  7,  Acts  iv.  20,  xxiii.  8,  Heb.  ix.  8. 
Where  the  inf.  has  the  art.,  a  negative  between  them 
is  regularly  JAYJ  :  we  find  it  too  in  2  Pet.  ii.  21,  where 
the  inf.,  without  art.,  is  subject  of  the  sentence.  In 
Acts  xix.  27,  Rom.  vii.  6,  Heb.  vii.  11,  we  should 
hardly  have  had  ov  (or  ovOev)  except  in  the  second 
member  of  an  antithesis.  In  2  Tim.  ii.  14  we  have 
ovSev,  but  should  prob.  have  had  CTT!  TO  fjirj  ^p.,  had 
the  simple  negative  been  used.  In  John  xxi.  fin., 
the  negative  belongs  not  to  the  infin.  but  to  avrov  rov 

KO&fJiOV. 

Of  /X^TTOTC  in  Heb.  ix.  17  we  have  given  above 
(p.  182)  what  seems  the  most  probable  account:  though 
it  is  possible  to  explain  its  use  as  a  rhetorical  question. 
It  is  used  in  a  direct  question  in  John  vii.  26,  in  an 
indirect  in  Luke  iii.  15.  The  tendency  in  late  Greek 
to  the  extended  use  of  this  form  in  particular  may 
have  been  encouraged  by  its  Aristotelian  use  in  the 
sense  of  "  perhaps ; "  of  which  we  have  something 
like  an  example  in  Matt.  xxv.  9 ;  though  perhaps 
it  is  not  wrong  to  supply  (we  must  not  insert)  an  ov 
before  it.  In  2  Tim.  ii.  25  /xr/Trore  is  of  course  not 


190   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

"  lest,"  but  "  in  case,"  "  if  haply,"  and  so  allied  to  the 
Aristotelian  sense.  M^TTWS  in  Rom.  xi.  21  would  be 
just  equivalent  to  that  use — perhaps  half  dependent 
on  the  <j>o/3ov  preceding :  but  it  is  a  "  Western  and 
Syrian  "  reading  that  cannot  be  regarded  as  original. 
For  the  use  of  /X^TTCOS  c.  indie,  (twice  coupled  with  a 
subj.)  in  Gal.  ii*  2,  iv.  11,  1  Thess.  iii.  5,  see  p.  114. 
Notice  also  the  use  of  opav,  /^AeTreiv,  O-KOTTCLV  pq — 
sometimes  c.  indie.,  p.  109,  on  the  analogy  of  <£o, 

/?€lGr$(H    [At]. 

The  interrogative  use  of  /x?/,  in  questions  expecting 
a  negative  answer,  is  perhaps  connected  (if  so,  prob. 
as  effect  not  as  source)  with  this  dubitative  use  of  //,?;. 
In  St.  John,  and  perhaps  in  St.  Paul,  the  interrogative 
use  is  commoner  than  in  pure  Greek,  but  does  not 
materially  differ  from  it,  so  far  as  regards  its  use  c. 
indie. :  it  is  not  used  c.  subj.  in  the  N.  T.,  for  in 
Mark  xii.  14  cited  above  it  is  a  real  negative.  Mo>v 
in  the  same  sense  is  not  found.  We  may  notice  the 
use  of  fjLTJ  several  times  in  St.  John,  where  the 
expectation  of  a  negative  answer  is  ironical  or  hypo- 
critical, and  the  askers  mean  to  suggest  as  possible 
what  they  profess  to  reject  as  incredible — vii.  47,  52, 
viii.  22  (ji^Ti). 

The  use  of  ov  where  an  affirmative  answer  is 
expected  needs  no  remark,  being  just  analogous  to 
the  practice  in  English  and  Latin :  only  in  the  latter 
non  may  seldom  be  used  for  nonne,  and  in  English  we 
vary  the  order  of  words — "is  he  not?"  interrogatively, 
but  ahe  is  not"  categorically.  In  Greek,  there  is 
not  necessarily — in  the  N.  T.  not  usually — any  differ- 
ence in  form  between  the  two :  but  it  is  seldom  that 
the  sense  fails  to  make  it  clear  which  is  intended. 


INTERROGATIVE  PARTICLES.          191 

Where  ambiguity  might  arise  (e.g.  1  Cor.  v.  12)  it  is 
avoided,  not,  as  in  classical  Greek,  by  the  use  of  op9  ov, 
for  this  combination  is  not  found  in  the  1ST.  T.,  but  of 
OV^L — a  form  appropriated  exclusively  to  questions 
(Matt,  always — 9  or  10  times :  Luke  vi.  39,  xii.  6, 
xiv.  28,  31,  xv.  8 — the  two  last  in  questions  beginning 
with  TI'S, — xvii.  8,  17,  xxii.  27,  xxiv.  32,  xi.  9,*  Acts 
v.  4,  vii.  50  (fr.  O.  T.),  Rom.  ii.  26,  iii.  29,  viii.  32— 
after  mos, — 1  Cor.  i.  20,  iii.  3,  v.  12,  vi.  7  bis,  viii. 

10,  ix.  1,  x.  16  bis,  2  Cor.  iii.  8— after  TTWS,— 1  Thess. 

11.  19 — with  r;, — Heb.  i.  14,  iii.  17),  answers  (always 
followed  by  dXXa — Luke  i.  60,  virtually,  xii.  51,  xiii. 
3,  5,  xvi.  30,  John  ix.  9  (true  text),  Rom.  iii.  27),  and 
antitheses  (John  xiii.  10,  which  explains  the  use  in  11, 
xiv.  22,   1   Cor.  v.  2,  vi.   1).     This  restriction  of  the 
use  of  the  form  is  not  classical ;  in  Attic  it  seems  to 
be   admissible   whenever   the    negative   is    emphatic, 
though  there  are  also  several  examples  of  its  use  in 
questions,  in  answers,  or  after  dAAa. 

Direct  questions,  when  not  suggesting  their  own 
answer,  seem  to  have  been  less  often  introduced  by 
a  distinct  interrogative  particle  in  popular  language 
than  in  literary  :  and  the  N.  T.  follows  the  popular 
use:  see  e.g.  John  v.  6,  ix.  19,  1  Cor.  ix.  11,  2  Cor. 
iii.  1,  where  the  form  of  the  sentence  does  not  show 
it  to  be  interrogative  at  all.  We  find  apa  only  twice, 
(Luke  xviii.  8,  Acts  viii.  30 — apd  ye) :  at  least  in 
Gal.  ii.  17  apa,  however  we  accent  it,  is  certainly 
illative  and  not  merely  interrogative,  though  the 
sentence  is  rightly  taken  as  a  question  ("  is  He  there- 
fore. .  .  .?"  "does  it  follow  that  He  is.  ...?") 

*  Also  vii.  42  T.  R.,  and  several  times  besides  where  the  best 
texts  have  the  simple  otf. 


192   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

"H  (though  no  one  proposes  to  write  it  jj)  seems  to 
have  an  interrogative  force,  not  a  disjunctive,  in 
Matt.  xxvi.  53,  Rom.  iii.  29,  vii.  1,  xi.  2,  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  9, 
x.  22,  xiv.  36,  2  Cor.  xi.  7,  James  iv.  5  :  in  all  these 
places  (for  one  can  hardly  correlate  1  Cor.  vi.  9  with 
ver.  2)  it  stands  as  the  first  word  of  the  question. 
In  1  Thess.  ii.  19,  also,  we  have  the  use  in  "  such 
direct  questions  as  follow  a  general  question  and 
suggest  the  answer  "  (L.  &  Sc.  s.  v.  A.  ii.  1).  And 
we  have  an  unclassical  use  of  et  to  introduce  direct 
questions,  often  in  St.  Luke,  besides  only  in  Matt.  xii. 
10,  xix.  3,  xx.  15,  Mark  viii.  23  (best  text).  St.  Luke 
seems  not  to  use  et,  however,  before  a  direct  double 
question,  when  the  texts  of  vi.  9,  xiv.  3  are  amended. 
As  a  rule,  the  first  clause  in  such  questions  stands 
without  a  particle,  the  second  being  introduced  by  77. 
On  the  use  of  ei  and  77  in  indirect  questions  we  have 
nothing  to  remark  :  Trdrepov  occurs  only  in  John  vii. 
17.  We  find,  however,  another  peculiar  use  of  et, 
which  may  be  mentioned  here,  though  prob.  connected 
rather  with  the  hypothetical  than  with  the  interro- 
gative use  of  the  word.  There  is  a  Hebrew  idiom, 
literally  reproduced  in  the  LXX.,  according  to  which 
DK  "  if  "  is  used  as  equivalent  to  a  negative  in  oaths  : 
e.g.  Ps.  xcv.  (xciv.)  fin.,  quoted  in  Heb.  iii.  11  sqq. 
The  origin  of  this  is,  no  doubt,  the  aposiopesis  of  an 
imprecation — one  may  guess,  that  of  the  biblical 
oath,  "  God  do  so  to  me  and  more  also,  if  .  .  . :  "  but 
it  comes  to  be,  in  Hellenistic  language,  simply  a  very 
emphatic  and  solemn  negative.  In  this  sense,  we 
get  it  in  Mark  viii.  12. 

It  seems  moreover  to  be  connected  with  this  use, 
that  we  get  et  /JLTJV  in  an  affirmative  oath,  in  what 


ADVERBS:   %  /^V,  d  w  193 

seems  to  be  unquestionably  the  true  text  of  Heb.  vi. 
14.  The  same  spelling  is  found  in  the  best  extant 
MSS.  of  the  LXX.  in  the  passage  quoted,  and  in 
several  others  :  so  the  evidence  is  too  early  and  too 
widespread  for  it  to  be  a  simple  itacism  :  77  did  not 
get  confounded  with  «  nearly  as  early  as  t.  We  may 
suppose  that  the  classical  formula  of  oath  rj  prjv  was 
assimilated  to  or  confounded  with  the  Hebraic  cl  //,?/, 
and  that  a  mixture  of  the  two  got  established  in 
Hellenistic  usage. 


13 


CHAPTER   VII. 

MISCELLANEOUS    FEATURES    OF   NEW   TESTAMENT 
GRAMMAR    AND    IDIOM. 

WE  meet  with  a  good  deal  of  inconsistency  of 
practice,  in  the  observance  or  non-observance 
of  the  Greek  syntactical  rule,  that  a  neut.  pi.  is 
followed  by  a  verb  in  the  sing.,  unless  the  subject, 
though  formally  neuter,  really  represents  living  agents 
— persons,  or  at  least  animals.  Thus  e.g.  Matt.  vi.  33, 
Tavra  7rdvTa  TrpocrTtOrjcrcTcii,  ib.  32,  Trdvra  yap  ravra  TO, 
WVK]  €7ri£?7Town/,  ib.  26,  TO,  Treretva  .  .  .  ov  cnrzipovcnv 
K.T.X.,  are  all  quite  regular.  But  ib.  28  we  have  TO, 
Kpiva  .  .  .  av£dvov(rw  ov  KOTrtojcrtv  ovSc  vrjOovcnv  :  and 
so  Luke  xxiv.  11,*  John  vi.  13,  1  Tim.  v.  25,  Rev.  iii.  2 
(?),  (si  v.l)  xvi.  20.*  In  (Matt.  xiii.  4  v.l.)  John  x.  4, 16, 
xix.  31,*  Rev.  i.  19  both  sing,  and  pi.  verbs  are  used 
in  the  same  sentence.  In  most  of  these  we  trace  no 
principle  :  in  John  xix.  31  any  reason  there  is  for 
insisting  on  cr/ccX^  implying  two  or  three  persons  (ver. 
32)  would  apply  with  greater  force  to  o-co/^ara.  In 
c.  x.  however,  there  is  a  delicate  shade  of  meaning 
in  the  change :  the  sing,  is  used  where  the  figure  is 
adhered  to,  without  admixture  of  the  thing  signified 

[*  Marks  the  passages  where  T.  R.  does  not  consistently 
insert  the  singular.] 


VERBS   WITH  NEUTER  PLURAL.      195 

(read  IOTIV  in  ver.  12);  but  the  pi.  where  it  is  distinctly 
intimated  that  "  the  flock  of  His  pasture  are  men  " 
(vv.  14,  27-8  :  read  d/covovortv  in  ver.  27),  or  where 
the  literal  sheep  are  described  as  acting  intelligently, 
"  like  Christians,"  vv.  4,  5,  16.  There  may  be  a  touch 
of  similar  feeling  in  the  personification  of  the  lilies  in 
St.  Matthew. 

On  the  other  hand  the  neut.  pi.  of  living  agents 
has  a  singular  verb  in  Matt.  xii.  45  —  Luke  xi.  26, 
Matt.  xiii.  4  (once  at  least) = Mark  iv.  4=Luke  viii.  5, 
Mark  iv.  10  (?)  cf.  Luke  viii.  30  (but  not  33,  true 
text),  Luke  (iv.  41?)  viii.  2,  xiii.  19,  Rom.  ix.  8, 
1  Cor.  vii.  14,  1  John  iii.  10,  iv.  1.*  In  Rom.  iii.  2 
St.  Chrysostom  considered  it  grammatically  an  open 
question,  whether  TO.  Aoyia  were  subject  or  object  to 
cTTia-TtvOrjo-av :  but  on  exegetical  grounds  there  is  no 
doubt  that  it  is  object,  so  that  the  pi.  is  regular. 

Akin  to  this  variety  of  use  in  a  special  Greek 
idiom  is  that  common  to  all  languages  in  the  use  of 
a  sing,  or  pi.  verb  when  its  subject  is  either  a  noun 
of  multitude  or  a  number  of  individuals  coupled  by 
conjunctions.  The  sing,  is  commoner  with  a  collec- 
tive in  the  N.  T.  as  in  classical  Greek — in  the  LXX. 
it  is  the  other  way  :  but  often  a  verb  less  directly, 
though  inf erentially,  connected  with  the  singular  subj . 
will  be  pi. — e.g.  Luke  i.  21,  John  vi.  2 :  so  1  Tim.  ii.  15, 
where  the  sing,  preceding  is  not  a  collective,  but  a 
representative. 

The  order  of  the  words  has  not  a  little  to  do  with 

*  Here  it  may  be  a  question  whether  the  irveij^ara  are 
conceived  as  personal.  This  will  not  apply  to  the  instances 
in  the  Gospels  where  dai/jLovia.  is  the  subject :  but  it  may  be  a 
question  (esp.  in  Mark  iv.  10)  how  far  their  action  is  ascribed 
to  the  demoniac. 


196   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

determining  the  constr.  in  this  point :  compare  the 
two  clauses  with  o^Xos  in  Mark  iv.  1,  John  vi.  22 
(best  text),  24,  xii.  9,  12.  So  it  affects  the  gender 
and  number  of  a  ptcp.  standing  as  a  secondary  predi- 
cate :  compare  Acts  xxi.  3G  (true  text)  with  Luke 
xxiii.  1.  An  adj.  or  ptcp.  forming  a  primary  pre- 
dicate would  naturally  be  sing.  (Luke  i.  10,  21)  : 
yet  we  get  the  pi.,  and  that  before  the  pi.  copula, 
in  John  vii.  49. 

With  a  compound  subject,  the  verb  can  only  be 
sing,  if  it  stand  first  (Matt.  xvii.  2,  John  ii.  2,  Acts 
xx.  4),  so  that  it  is  intelligible  as  constructed  with 
the  first  only  of  the  nouns,  and  is  supplied  with  the 
rest.  We  notice  a  slight  irregularity  in  the  use  of 
a  sing,  verb  with  a  pi.  ptcp.  as  primary  predicate  in 
Luke  ii.  33,  and  as  secondary  in  Matt.  xvii.  2. 

In  general,  the  want  of  clear  and  straightforward 
connexion  between  subject  and  predicate  is  the  rarest 
of  faults  in  the  style  of  the  N.  T.  :  the  simplicity  of 
most  of  the  sentences  is  a  security  for  their  correct- 
ness and  intelligibility.  In  the  more  periodic  style  of 
the  Acts,  however,  we  get  some  entanglement :  in 
xvii.  2  it  is  hardly  Greek  to  leave  the  subject  to  be 
inferred  from  mention  in  an  oblique  case.  Of  viii.  7 
we  could  at  best  say  the  same,  if  the  T.  K.  were 
right ;  but  as  we  must  certainly  read  TroXXot,  the 
only  choice  is  between  saying  that  we  have  a  mixture 
of  two  constructions  (TroXXoi  ran/  c^.  TTJ/.  CLK.  lOcpairevOrj- 
o-av,  and  TroXXwv  TTV.  OLK.  fto^vra  <£.  /xey.  c^p^ovro),  and 
taking  c£ypx-  i*1  a  peculiar  quasi-transitive  sense, 
"  had  spirits  come  out  of  them." 

A  converse  case  to  this  is  the  trajection  of  the 
subject  of  clause  to  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  for 


ABSOLUTE  NOMINATIVE.  197 

the  sake  of  emphasis.  1  Cor.  xi.  14,  where  avyp  and 
yvvrf  are  put  each  at  the  beginning  of  its  own  clause, 
are  quite  natural  Greek  :  so  is  even  John  viii.  45  : 
but  Luke  xxi.  6,  John  x.  29  (if  we  read  the  neut.), 
still  more  1  John  ii.  27,  or  even  24,  go  beyond  what 
a  classical  author  would  be  likely  to  write. 

Sentences  like  these,  in  fact,  though  they  have  a 
place  in  their  framework  into  which  the  nom.  can  be 
fitted,  really  approximate  to  those  in  which  we  get 
the  so-called  nom.  abs.,  to  designate  the  subject  of 
the  sentence  in  the  popular  sense,  when  it  is  not  the 
"  subject "  in  the  grammatical — e.g.  Ex.  xxxii.  1 
quoted  (loosely)  ap.  Acts  vii.  40.  So  Matt.  x.  32, 
Luke  xii.  10,  Horn.  ix.  10 :  Luke  vi.  47  may  be 
regarded  as  an  instance  either  of  this  constr.  or  of 
that  last  mentioned.  In  John  vi.  39,  TTOLV  may  be 
regarded  either  as  nom.  or  as  ace., — being  (if  the  latter) 
originally  intended  to  serve  as  object  to  aTroXea-w  and 
cU'acrTTycra),  but  being  replaced  with  the  former  by 
c£  OLVTOV,  which  makes  the  statement  more  absolute : 
but  sentences  like  Luke  xii.  10  tend  to  show  that 
here  too  irav  is  really  nom.  There  is  something  of  a 
Hellenistic  tone  in  sentences  like  these.  In  Exod.  or 
Acts  I.e.,  a  classical  writer  would  have  been  likelier 
to  put  an  ace.,  in  some  sort  of  dependence  on  OVK 
otSaftev,  "  We  know  not  about  this  M.  what  is  become 
of  him."  But  though  a  nom.  thus  used  is  a  sort  of 
slight  anacoluthon  John  xv.  5  shows  how  possible  it 
is  to  have  a  noun  or  pron.  that  cannot,  without 
recasting  the  whole  sentence  for  the  worse,  be  intro- 
duced in  any  other  way. 

Similar  in  principle  to  this  use  of  the  nom.  is  that 
of  a  relative  clause  without  any  definite  antecedent, 


198   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Matt.  x.  14,  Luke  ix.  5.  But  sentences  of  this  sort 
shade  off  into  such  as  Luke  x.  8,  where  the  rel.  clause 
has,  if  not  a  definite  place  in  the  sentence,  a  coherent 
construction  of  its  own,  and  from  this  into  such  as 
ver.  10,  where  it  even  gets  an  antecedent  clause  at 
last.  In  general,  when  we  meet  with  anacolutha 
more  considerable  than  these,  they  are  too  closely 
connected  with  the  individual  style  of  the  writer  to 
rank  as .  characteristics  of  Hellenistic  New  Testament 
Greek.  We  may  however  here  notice  the  change  of 
constr.  in  Mark  vi.  8,  9  from  IW  to  the  inf.,  and  this 
through  a  ptcp.,  which  seems  to  presuppose  an 
earlier  inf.,  and  in  its  absence  has  no  proper  constr. 
at  all.  This  case  is  not  unlike  the  common  one  (esp. 
common  in  St.  Luke),  where  a  report  of  a  speech 
begun  in  or.  obi.  slides  into  or.  recta :  so  indeed  a  v.  I. 
here.  We  have  a  solitary  instance  of  the  opposite 
transition  from  or.  recta  to  obi.  in  Acts  xxiii.  23-4. 
Somewhat  similar  to  this,  again,  is  the  case  of  Horn, 
ii.  7,  8,  xi.  22,  where  the  change  from  ace.  to  nom. 
cannot  be  explained,  like  most  of  St.  Paul's  anacolutha, 
either  by  his  losing  his  way  in  a  long  or  involved 
sentence,  or  by  his  wanting,  before  he  had  finished 
saying  one  thing,  to  bring  something  else  into  relation 
to  it.  See  also  p.  77,  on  Phil.  iii.  18,  19.  But  we 
throw  no  light  on  slight  irregularities  like  these,  by 
correlating  them  with  the  mixtures  of  cases  that  we 
get  in  the  Apoc.,  e.g.  vii.  9,  xviii.  12,  13. 

Of  course  no  difficulty  is  presented  by  a  sentence 
where — generally  with  a  rhetorical  purpose — the 
constr.  is  not  changed,  but  left  incomplete  :  e.g.  Acts 
xxiv.  19,  where  the  "Jews  of  Asia  who  ought  to 
be  here  "  never  get  a  predicate — the  Apostle,  instead 


USE   OF  PARENTHESIS.  199 

of  challenging  them,  challenges  those  who  are  here 
to  say  the  worst  they  can  of  him.  A  familiar  case  is 
that  where  the  apodosis  of  a  conditional  sentence  is 
suppressed,  as  Acts  xxiii.  9  (true  text),  Rom.  ix.  22. 
With  the  true  reading  in  Luke  xiii.  9,  it  becomes 
doubtful  if  we  have  there  an  instance  :  cts  TO  /AeAAov 
may  be,  not  merely  "if  it  bear  fruit  for  the  future" 
but  a  suggestion  of  an  apodosis,  "if  it  bear  fruit,  we 
can  leave  the  question  for  another  day." 

The  question  how  far  parenthesis  is  used  in  the 
N.  T.  is  partly  one  of  exegesis,  partly  of  definition  : 
but  as  a  rule  one  may  say  that  it  is  commoner  in  the 
Epp.  than  in  the  historical  books.  In  St.  Paul  the 
line  is  not  always  clearly  drawn  between  parenthesis 
and  anacoluthon :  when  he  has  made  a  digression  and 
returns  to  his  first  subject,  he  very  often  makes  a 
fresh  start,  leaving  the  first  sentence  unfinished.  So 
apparently  Rom.  v.  12,  18;  and  very  likely  1  Cor. 
viii.  1,  4.  In  Rom.  ix.  11  we  have  a  nearer  approach 
to  a  real  parenthesis,  though  the  nom.  PC/SCKKCI  .  .  . 
exovcra  is  succeeded  by  the  dat.  avrfj :  but  we  seldom 
get  in  him  as  consistent  a  resumption  of  the  inter- 
rupted sentence  as  e.g.  Heb.  xii.  18-22,  at  least  if 
the  parenthesis  is  of  any  length.  1  Cor.  xvi.  5  runs 
smoothly  :  but  an  equally  unargumentative  and 
hardly  more  impassioned  passage  like  Rom.  xv.  23-8 
gets  into  confusion. 

In  the  historical  books,  on  the  other  hand,  a  paren- 
thesis as  long  as  that  in  Luke  xxiii.  51  is  exceptional. 
We  get  indeed  shorter  notes  inserted  in  a  sentence, 
in  a  way  more  like  parenthesis  than  anything  for 
which  there  is  a  grammatical  term  ;  such  as  the  notes 
of  names  in  John  i.  6,  iii.  1  (compare,  but  distinguish 


200  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Luke  xix.  2,  as  well  as  viii.  41),  or  of  time  in  Matt, 
xv.  32  (true  text),  Luke  ix.  28.  And  we  get  occa- 
sional glosses  on  foreign  words  (Mark  vii.  11,  John  i. 
39,  etc.),  and  more  rarely  comments  on  what  is  related 
or  reported  (Matt.  xxv.  15  =  Mark  xii.  14,  and  prob. 
Mark  vii.  19).  But  in  general,  notes  like  these,  if  not 
incorporated  in  the  main  sentence,  are  brought  in  as 
separate  sentences  after  it  (e.g.  John  vi.  59,  viii.  20; 
or  again  vii.  39,  xii.  33,  etc).  It  is  characteristic  of 
Hellenistic  narrative  to  proceed  without  such  breaks  : 
even  the  single  words  <f>rj<riv  and  €<f>r]  are  rarely 
inserted  between  the  words  quoted  (only  in  Matt.  xiv. 
8,  Luke  vii.  40  (true  text),  Acts  xxiii.  35,  xxv.  5,  22, 
xxvi.  25,  1  Cor.  vi.  16,  2  Cor.  x.  10,  Heb.  viii.  5). 
One  may  notice  that  in  the  three  last  passages  Qrjo-w 
(if  that  be  the  true  reading  in  2  Cor.)  is  used  with 
a  vaguely  conceived  subject :  one  hardly  thinks  the 
Apostle  definitely  understood  6  ©C, — rather  fj  ypa<f>vj 
(Rom.  xi.  2  etc.)  or  6  x/o>7/xcmoy>ios  (ib.  4). 

There  are  a  good  many  elliptical  adverbial  phrases 
found  in  the  N.  T.,  formed  by  the  use  of  certain  parts 
of  adjectives  without  their  substantives.  The  adver- 
bial use  of  the  neut.  does  not  indeed  go  beyond  what 
was  usual  in  late  but  pure  Greek :  and  of  the  phrases 
(mostly  fern.)  that  employ  a  more  definite  ellipsis, 
Kara  /xoi/as  is  quite  classical,  KOLT  iSiai/  as  early  as 
Polybius.  But  we  nowhere  find  in  secular  Greek 
OTTO  /^tas  (it  is  hard  to  say  what  the  subst.  understood 
is),  as  in  Luke  xiv.  18.  In  pure  Greek  we  have  rj 
o-^/xepov,  17  avpiov,  but  not  rfj  e£^s  (Acts  xxi.  1,  xxv. 
17,  xxvii.  18 — prob.  not  Luke  vii.  11).  CH  eTrtovo-a, 
however,  and  77  e^o/xev^  are  used  as  early  as  Polybius  : 
so  l£avT7Js9  which  is  found  much  earlier  in  poets.  But 


HEBREW  AND   GREEK  IDIOMS.      201 

we  find  no  precedent  for  d<£'  r)s  (Luke  vii.  45,  Acts 
xxiv.  11 — here  no  doubt  the  context  helps  it  out — 
2  Pet.  iii.  4),  instead  of  the  common  d<£'  ov  (Luke  xiii. 
25).  In  James  v.  7  it  perhaps  is  better  not  to  under- 
stand VCTOI/,  but  /ca/o7rov,  which  is  readily  supplied 
from  the  context. 

We  may  conclude  with  the  notice  of  two  points 
— one  of  Hebrew  idiom  toned  down  through  the 
medium  of  the  LXX.,  and  one  of  Greek  idiom, 
perhaps  imperfectly  mastered.  We  get  in  Hebrew 
phrases  like  Gen.  xxv.  1,  lit.  "  And  Abraham  added 
and  took,"  LXX.  irpoo-Oi^vo^  Sc  A/Spadf*  cAa/^cv ; 
xxvi.  18,  lit.  "  and  Isaac  returned  and  digged,"  LXX. 

KOL     TToXlV     lo-OLOLK    WpV&V  \     HOS.     L     6,   lit.     "  for    I     [will] 

not  add  further  I  [will]  have  mercy,"  LXX,  ov  prj 
Trpocr^o-oj  ert  eXc^crat ;  Dan.  x.  18,  Theodot.  here 
literally  KCU,  7rpoo~€@eTo  KO!  ^\j/ar6  JJLOV.  So  with  other 
verbs,  e.g.  Judges  xiii.  10,  LXX.  literally  erd\w€v  rj 
yvvri  KOL  [e^JeSpa/xev ;  1  Sam.  i.  12,  lit.  "as  she  multi- 
plied to  pray,"  LXX.  ore  eirXrjOvvev  7rpocr€v^ofJL€i/rj ; 
ii.  3,  lit.  "Multiply  not,  talk  (not),"  LXX.  ^  KavXa<rOe 
KOI  jury  AaActre,  (but  Yulg.  nolite  multiplicare  loqui). 

Now  in  the  N.  T.  we  hardly  get  any  instance  of  a 
reproduction  of  this  idiom  in  its  most  un-Hellenic  form, 
the  co-ordination  of  two  finite  verbs :  the  only  clear 
ones  are  Acts  vii.  42,  which  though  not  an  actual 
quotation  from  the  0.  T.  is  in  a  passage  full  of  O.  T. 
language,  and  xv.  16,  which  is  a  very  lax  quotation, 
though  founded  on  the  LXX.  :  the  words  draarpe^w 
Kat  are  actually  not  found  there,  nor  the  correspond- 
ing ones  in  the  Hebrew.  Luke  vi.  48  IO-KCU^CI/  KOL 
€/3d6vv€v  KOL  WrjKtv,  may  be  taken  as  such  an  instance, 
if  we  connect  cftdO.  with  what  follows,  "  he  laid  the 


202   LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

foundation  deep :  "  but  it  is  perh.  simpler  to  connect  it 
with  CO-K.,  "he  dug,  and  deepened  (the  trench  dug  out).'1 

There  are  however  cases  where  the  N".  T.  writers 
use  the  constructions  with  infin.  or  ptop.  into  which 
the  LXX.  had  often  softened  the  Hebrew  one,  and 
the  former  of  which  actually  occurs  in  Hebrew  :  we 
get  the  constr.  c.  ptcp  in  Luke  xix.  11,  Trpoo-Otls  eiTrei/, 
and  c.  inf.  in  xx.  11,  12,  Acts  xii.  3.  In  Mark  xiv. 
25,  also,  P  reads  ov  /XT;  Trpoo-Ou  Tretv.  Possibly  these 
constructions  were  helped  into  use,  by  their  possessing 
a  sort  of  analogy  with  the  Greek  idioms  where  a 
verb  such  as  Aav0ai/civ,  <£#aveiv,  rvy^ai/€tv,  formally 
the  chief  one  in  the  sentence,  expresses  what  most 
languages  would  express  by  an  adv.  ("  he  did  it 
secretly"  or  "he  did  &  first"  or  "beforehand,"  "forte 
aderat,"  and  the  like). 

It  is  well  known  that  CIUTOS  Kai  aAAot  $vo  KaKovpyoi 
does  not,  in  Greek,  necessarily  imply  that  the  first 
person  named  was  himself  a  KaKovpyos :  see  e.g.  Xen. 
Anab.  I.  v.  5,  ov  yap  rjv  %opTOs  ovSc  aXXo  SevSpoi/  ovSej/. 
But  ercpos  does  not  appear  to  be  so  used;  yet  St. 
Luke  appears  so  to  use  it  in  xxiii.  32,  at  least  if  we 
read  erepot  KaKovpyoi  8vo.  The  T.  R.  might  possibly 
be  read  as  the  A.  Y.  "  two  other,  [in  modern  English, 
"  two  others,"]  malefactors,"  and  then  would  pass  : 
as  will  x.  1  ercpovs  o',  "  others  to  the  number  of  70." 

But  instead  of  assuming  that  St.  Luke  was  here 
(as  may  be  the  case  in  some  less  important  passages) 
attempting  an  elegant  idiom  that  he  could  not  quite 
manage,  it  may  be  a  question  whether  we  are  not  to 
think  that  he  boldly  wrote  "  two  other  malefactors," 
emphasising  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  which  he 
had  quoted  at  xxii.  37.  Possibly  it  is  more  reverent 


GRAMMAR  AND   EXEGESIS.  203 

to  think  so,  than  either  to  say  that  his  knowledge  of 
Greek  was  in  fault,  or  to  say  that  he  could  not  have 
written  what  the  authorities  (BK  and  the  two  Egyptian 
versions)  tell  us  he  did  write.  As  we  have  said  all 
along,  textual  criticism  and  grammar  must  be  servants 
not  masters  to  exegesis.  When  the  critic  and  the 
grammarian  have  made  their  report  (which  here  is 
for  the  harder  text,  and  against  the  easier  inter- 
pretation), 6  TZTCtyAciTiKos  dva/cptVct  JJL\V  Travra,  avros  Se 


INDEX. 


MATTHEW. 

MATTHEW 

(continued)— 

CHAP,  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEK. 

PAGE 

i.  2-16  . 

.  46 

v,  19  . 

.  66 

6   ... 

.  26 

28  . 

.  91 

11,  12 

.  87 

29,30 

.  64,  178 

15   ... 

.  27 

34-36 

.  145,  165 

18   ... 

57,  172 

48  . 

.  115 

19   ... 

54  Ms 

vi,  1 

.  120 

20   ... 

.  57 

2 

.  64 

21   ... 

.  60 

3,  4  . 

.  54 

23   ... 

.  150 

5   . 

.  115 

ii.  1   .    .    . 

.  139 

10  . 

.  36,  164 

2   ... 

.  118 

15  . 

.  185 

3   ... 

.  29 

16  . 

.  115 

4   ... 

.  101 

19,  20 

,  64 

5   ... 

.  52 

24  . 

.  72 

8   ... 

.  96 

25   . 

.  112 

9   ... 

.  52 

26  . 

.  194 

12  ... 

.  189 

28  . 

.  39,  194 

22   ... 

147,  179 

30  . 

.  127 

23  . 

.  142 

32,  33 

.  194 

iii.  3 

26 

34   . 

.  126 

4   ... 

.  54 

vii.  4 

.  116,  145 

11  ... 

60,  144 

12  . 

.  164,  177 

14  ... 

.  62 

14  . 

.  68 

16  ... 

.  64 

15   . 

.  145 

iv.  3   . 

.  177 

20  . 

.  181 

13  . 

.  142 

21   . 

.  73 

v.  1       .   57, 

58,  58  n. 

24,26 

56,  87,  88 

6   . 

.  91 

29   . 

.  175 

13  . 

.  144 

viii.  1   . 

.  57 

15  . 

.  165 

5 

.  57 

17  ... 

.  165 

7   . 

.  53 

206 


INDEX. 


MATTHEW 

(continued'}  — 

MATTHEW 

(continued  )  — 

CHAP.  VEK. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEE. 

PAGE 

viii,  8   . 

.  56,  178 

XV.  4 

.  83 

19 

.    .  71 

5 

113  Us 

20  . 

.  112 

20  . 

.  120 

22 

.  116 

23   . 

.  29 

23   '. 

.   57  n,  58,  59 

27  . 

.  138 

27   . 

.  174 

32   . 

69,  78,  112,  200 

28   . 

.  57 

xvi.  14  . 

52,  71 

ix,  14  . 

.  83 

20  . 

.  177 

18   . 

.  71,  166 

22   . 

.  113 

27   . 

.  57 

23  . 

.  55 

32 

57 

xvii.  2 

196  Ms 

x  5 

87 

4 

71 

14  . 

.  197 

9   .' 

.  145 

16   . 

.  53 

11   . 

.  100 

19   . 

.  70,  112 

12   . 

.  157 

25  . 

.  178 

20   . 

.  179  Us 

29   . 

.  71 

22  . 

.  57 

30  . 

.  135 

xviii.  1   . 

.  94 

32   . 

.  145,  198 

6   . 

.  71 

xi,  5 

.  79 

7   . 

.  139 

11   . 

.  94 

8,9  . 

.    .    .  92 

14   . 

,  60 

10,  12 

.  71 

26   . 

.  76 

14   . 

.  177 

28  . 

.  62 

16   . 

.  64 

xii.  1 

.  38 

19   . 

.  110 

10  . 

.  192 

20  . 

.  54 

13  . 

34  n 

21,22 

.  159 

19  . 

.  89 

24   . 

.  71 

28  . 

.  181 

25   . 

.  122,  188 

44  . 

.  180 

28   . 

.  71 

45  . 

.  195 

xix,  3   . 

.  149,  192 

50  . 

.  60 

14  . 

.  62,  116 

xiii.  4 

54,  194,  5 

16  . 

.  71 

12  . 

.  186 

25  . 

,  181 

13 

38 

26 

81 

14  . 

.   83,  130 

28  .' 

!    .    .146 

30 

116 

xx,  2,  13 

146 

38 

66 

15 

192 

56  . 

.  154 

18   . 

!  82 

xiv,  2 

.  96 

20   . 

.  95 

7   . 

.  180 

21   . 

.  71 

8   . 

.  200 

22   . 

.    .  95 

9 

.  122 

23   . 

.  54,  119 

19  . 

.  122 

33   . 

.  177 

26  . 

.  139 

xxi,  1 

.  26 

INDEX. 


207 


MATTHEW  (continued)  — 

CHAP.  VEK.                    PAGE 

xxi.  12  .    .    .    .50 
23  ...  57,  135 
31  ...  70,  138 
33   .    .    .    .38 
42      -         1  43 

MATTHEW  (continued  )  — 

CHAP.  VEB.                    PAGE 

xxvi,  65  .    .    .    .88 
68  .    .    ..135 
69  .    .    .    .71 
xxvii.  1   .    .    .  119,  175 
6       .    .    .80 
7   ...   146W* 
8       .    .    .180 
10   .    .    .   80,  146 
17   ....  180 
21   ....  138 
23               1  79, 

xxii.  5 
11   . 
25,  29 
36  . 
41   . 
xxiii.  2-12  . 
16   . 
30  . 
37   . 
xxiv.  2 
3 
18  . 
22  . 
33  . 
40  . 
42,  43, 
48   . 
xxv,  1,  3,  4, 
6 
8 
9 
15   . 
21,  23 
24   . 
26   . 
27   . 
36   . 
xxvi,  2 
6,7  . 
14  . 
18   . 
24   . 
28   . 
35   . 
42   . 
45   . 
50   . 
53 

.  72 
.  187 
.   •  .    .188 
.  93 
.  57 
.  167 
.  145 
.  38 
.  29 
.  147,  187 
.  57 
.  143 
.   73,  184 
.  147 
.  71 
44.    .    .100 
.  56 
7  .    .    .64 
.  100 
.  138 
.  189 
.  200 
.  39 
.  174,  180 
.  180 
.  113 
.  62 
.  101,  162 
.  57 
.  71 
.  154 
.  114,  184 
.  127 
.  112 
184,  6 
.  163 
.  68 
192 

24 
40 
48 
49 
51 
56 
57 

xxviii.  9 

.  138 
.    .    .    .140 
.  71 
.  116 
,  159 
.  27 
.  79 
>4            122 
175 

i.  7 
9 
13 

MARK. 

.  59  n,  100 
.  143 
149 

15 
22 
34 
39 
44 
ii.  1 
2 
16 
18 
25 
26 
iii.  5 
11 
14 
21 
iv.  1 
3 
4 
8 
10 

.  '  .  144 
.  175 
.  38 
.  142 
.  152 
.  139 

.  154 
.  G8,  174 
83,  135  Ing 
.  60 
.  47 
34% 
.  Ill 
.  118 
.  151 
.  154,  196 
.  119 
.  195 
71  n 
.  39,  153,  195  n 

61   . 
63   , 

.  139 
.  148 

208 


INDEX. 


MAEK 

(continued}— 

MAEK 

(continued}  — 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEE. 

PAGE 

iv.  r» 

112 

ix,  43-15 

.  92 

20  . 

71  n 

x,  14  . 

.  62,  116 

25  . 

.  186 

17   . 

.  71 

34,  38 

.  60 

27  . 

.  165 

41   . 

.  174,  181 

33   . 

.  82 

v,  4 

.  76 

35,38 

.  95 

11   . 

.  154 

40  . 

.  54 

21   . 

.  57 

51   .' 

..  177 

23  . 

.  116 

xi,  1 

.  29 

26   . 

.  151  188 

4 

.  154 

28  . 

.  170 

15  . 

.  50 

30   . 

.  135 

16  . 

.  38 

42   . 

.  173 

19  . 

.  Ill 

vi,  3   . 

.  154 

22  . 

.  86 

7   . 

.  72 

25  . 

.  Ill 

8   . 

.  122 

26   . 

.   184,  5 

8,9  . 

.  198 

28   . 

.  135 

14  . 

.  96 

xii,  5   . 

.  52 

15   . 

.  71 

6   . 

.  180 

22  . 

.  58 

12   . 

.  163 

23-25 

.  95 

14   . 

.  182,  190,  200 

25   . 

.  197 

28   . 

93  n 

36  . 

.   69,  112 

32  . 

.  171 

56  . 

.  Ill,  170 

38-40 

.  77 

vii,  11,  19 

.  200 

xiii,  2 

.  147,187 

27   . 

.  116 

9   . 

.  143 

28   . 

.  138 

11   . 

.  70,  112 

viii,  1 

.  69,  112 

13  . 

.  147 

2 

69,  78,  112 

16  . 

.  143 

12  . 

.  192 

19  . 

.  59 

23   . 

.  192 

20  . 

.  73,  184 

37   . 

.  107 

24  . 

.  165 

38  . 

.  54 

25   . 

.  135 

ix.  6   . 

.   69,  112 

29  . 

.  147 

11   . 

.  68 

32  . 

.  158 

12   . 

.  168 

35   . 

.  100 

13  . 

.  165 

xiv,  1 

.  112 

17  . 

.  71 

2 

.  109 

19  . 

.  62,  154 

5 

.  39,  113 

21   . 

.  175 

8   . 

.  56 

22  . 

.  166 

11   . 

.  112 

24   . 

.  56 

19  . 

72  Ms 

30  . 

.  107 

21   . 

.  114,  184 

34   . 

.  94 

24  . 

.  127,  152 

40  . 

.  156 

25  . 

,  202 

INDEX. 


209 


MARK  (continued)— 


LUKE  (continued)  — 


CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

xiv,  36  . 

.   70,  76 

ii.  10  . 

.    .    .  79 

40  . 

.  112 

13  . 

..    .    .84 

49  . 

.  178 

21   . 

.    .  162 

53  . 

.  82 

26   . 

.  111,189 

54 

154,  159 

28 

.  61 

55  . 

!    .  34 

31  .. 

.    .  149 

58  . 

.  139 

33   . 

.  196 

64  . 

.  88 

37   . 

.  61 

72  . 

.  90 

49  . 

.  147 

XV,  1    . 

.  147 

-51   . 

.  135 

23   . 

.  53 

iii.7   . 

.  180 

25  . 

.  162 

15   . 

.  112 

28 

149 

16  , 

59  a 

29 

140 

18 

.  79 

36   .' 

.*  116 

21   . 

34  n 

38   . 

.  159 

24,  29 

.    .  29 

40   . 

.  27 

iv.  10  . 

.  195 

44   . 

.  104 

14  . 

.  148 

47   . 

.  27 

15  . 

.  61 

xvi.  3 

.  145 

18  . 

.   79,  103,  105 

9 

72  n 

27   . 

.27 

29  . 

.  175 

LUKE. 

36   . 

.  174 

38  . 

.  152 

i.  1 

44  n 

41   . 

.  195 

5 

.  47 

43   . 

.  79 

10  . 

.   84,  196 

44   . 

.  142 

17   . 

.  26 

v,  1 

.  61 

11)   . 

.  79 

5 

.   61,  140 

20   . 

.  137,  188 

6 

.  84 

21   . 

.  195,  196 

12   . 

.    .  71 

22   . 

.  61 

14   . 

.   61,  152,  189 

27   . 

.  35 

16   . 

.  61 

28   . 

,  150 

17   . 

61,  71 

29   . 

.   52,  112 

20,23 

.  38 

30   . 

.  96 

33  . 

.  82 

33   . 

.  147 

47   . 

.  62 

35   . 

.  180 

vi.  9 

.  192 

37  . 

,   73,  151 

10  . 

34  n 

43  . 

.   62,  178 

11   . 

.  112 

60  . 

.  191 

12   . 

.  87 

66   . 

.  181 

17   . 

..  84 

79  -  . 

.  38 

18   . 

.  138 

ii.  4   . 

<  138 

20   . 

54,  61 

5   . 

.   28,  35 

39   . 

.   72,  191 

14 


210 


INDEX. 


LUKE 

(continued  )  — 

LUKE 

(continued)*— 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

vi,  40  . 

.  72 

x.  7   . 

.  151 

42   . 

.  116,  187 

8   . 

.  197 

43 

188 

10 

1QQ 

47   . 

.  88,  197 

18  '. 

.        .       •   J-t7O 

.  123 

48  . 

.  201 

19   . 

.  113 

vii.  4 

.  109 

32  . 

.  148 

6   . 

.  187 

35   . 

.  147 

7 

.  180 

39   . 

.  65 

11   . 

.  200 

xi.  4 

.  38 

13  . 

.  115 

5 

.  113 

16   . 

.  117 

6 

.  62 

25  . 

59  n 

8 

.  173,  184 

28  . 

.  94 

20  . 

.  181 

35   . 

.  138 

24  . 

.  180 

40  . 

.  200 

26  . 

.  195 

41   . 

.  72 

28  . 

.  168 

44  . 

.  56 

35   . 

.  109 

45  . 

.   56,  201 

48   . 

,  181 

46  . 

.  56 

xii,  3   . 

.  137 

47,  48 

.  38 

5 

.  129 

viii,  1 

61,  79 

6 

.  188,  191 

2   . 

.  186 

8   . 

.  145 

5   . 

.  195 

10  . 

.   197  biff 

9 

.  112 

18  . 

.  56 

18  . 

.  186 

20  . 

.  77 

22   . 

.   61,  79 

22  . 

.  112 

30  . 

.  195 

26 

.  183 

37   . 

.  84 

29   . 

.  112 

41   . 

.  200 

30  . 

55 

45  . 

.  135 

32   . 

.  76 

50,  52 

.  115 

39,40 

.  100 

54   . 

.  76 

42  . 

.  119 

ix.  5   . 

.  198 

50  . 

.  56 

13   . 

.  110 

51   . 

.  166,  191 

28   . 

.  78,  200 

53  . 

.  147 

31   . 

.  40 

54   . 

.  100 

36   . 

.  36,  105  M,  144 

xiii,  2   . 

.  93,  103 

41   . 

.  154 

3 

.  191 

45   . 

.  87,  177 

4 

.  93 

50   . 

.  156 

5 

.  191 

52   , 

119,  154,  175  bis 

9 

.  186,  199 

60  . 

.  116 

11   . 

.  188 

x,  1 

.   72,  154 

19  . 

.  143,  195 

4   . 

.  115 

25   . 

.  201 

6 

.  186 

28,  35 

.  Ill 

INDEX. 


211 


LUKE 

(continued)  —         LUKE  (continued)  — 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEE. 

PAGE 

xiv.  1 

.  61 

xviii,  36 

.  88 

3   . 

.  192 

40 

.  122 

18  . 

.  200 

41 

.  177 

24  . 

.  56 

xix.  2 

.   61,  129,  200 

26 

56,  62,  183 

3 

.  139 

27  '. 

.  56 

11 

.  202 

28   . 

.  191 

14 

.  147 

31   . 

.  145,  191 

22 

.  99 

32   . 

.  186 

27 

.  147 

49   . 

.  154 

37 

.  84,  154 

xv.  7 

.  92 

40 

.  110 

8   . 

.  191 

42 

.  168 

14  . 

.  61 

43 

.  162 

25  . 

.  88 

48 

.  38 

31   . 

.  54 

XX,  1 

.  58 

xvi,  2 

.  39 

2  fi 

.  135 

8   . 

84,  93 

7 

.  189 

9   . 

.   84,  146 

9 

.  38 

11,  12 

.  183,  185 

10 

.  138 

13   . 

.  72 

11, 

12   ...  202 

16   . 

.  79,  158 

20 

.  121,  176 

20  . 

33  n 

27 

.  77 

23   . 

...  98 

29 

.  180 

25  . 

.  39 

35, 

36    ...  165 

26   . 

.  179,  180 

xxi.  6 

.  147,  187,  197 

29   . 

.   27,  99 

24 

.  135 

30   . 

.  191 

25 

.  31 

31   . 

.  183 

37 

.  142 

xvii  1 

.  119 

xxii*  1 

.  85 

2   . 

.  92 

2,4 

.  112 

8   . 

39,  70,  191 

15 

.  83,  130 

11   . 

.  61,  142 

20 

.  127 

,15   . 

.56,  150 

22 

.  168 

17   . 

.  191 

23 

.  42.  181 

20  . 

.  100 

24 

.  94 

25   . 

.  138 

27 

.  191 

34  . 

.  72 

28 

135 

xviii,  2 

.  188 

37 

.  149,  202 

4   . 

.  184 

42 

.  116 

5   . 

.  173 

49 

.  153 

6 

.  84 

53 

55,  58 

8 

.  191 

56 

.  154 

10  . 

.  72 

64 

.  135 

14   . 

.   92,  93 

76 

53  n 

16   . 

.  62,  116 

xxiii.  1 

.  169 

212 


INDEX. 


LUKE 

(continued}  — 

JOHN 

(continued}  — 

CHAP,  VEB. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

xxiii.  5 

.  148,  159 

iii,  2 

.   .    .  150 

18  . 

.  46 

8 

89,  100  n 

19  . 

.  130 

12   . 

.  183 

27  . 

.  84 

13   . 

.  128 

29  , 

.   100  Us 

15   . 

.  73,  144 

30  . 

.    36  n 

16   . 

..   73,  175,  178 

32   . 

.  202 

.18  .. 

.  182 

44   . 

162  n 

19   . 

.    .  167 

51  . 

.  199 

24   . 

.    .188 

53  . 

188 

25 

145 

xxiv,  5 

.  58,  149 

29   . 

.  83,  130 

11   . 

.  194 

iv.  2   . 

.  168 

14  . 

.  61 

10   . 

.  135 

18  . 

.  122 

11   . 

.  165 

20  . 

.  LJ6 

14   . 

.  113 

,21  . 

.   78,  121,  166 

15   . 

.  109 

25  . 

.  148 

21   . 

.  100 

27  . 

.  158 

23   . 

.  80,  100 

,32  , 

.  191 

25   . 

.  100 

41  , 

.   .  58 

34   . 

.  54,  178 

35 

100 

JOHN. 

37   . 

.  135 

44   . 

.  173 

.  i.  1 

.  48,  154 

v.  6 

.  191 

3 

.  141 

7 

.  178 

5   . 

.  182 

11   . 

.  52 

6 

.  78,  199 

12   . 

.  135 

8 

.    .178 

15 

.  135 

10  . 

..182 

16   . 

.  182 

15   . 

.  94 

24   . 

.  100 

16   . 

.  137 

25,  28 

.   89,  100 

18   . 

.  154 

29   . 

.  85 

30   . 

.  94 

32   . 

.  135 

32   . 

.  129 

37   . 

.    .89 

39   . 

.  200 

40   . 

.  62 

40   . 

.  87 

42   . 

.  86 

47   . 

.  122 

45   . 

.  135 

ii,  2   . 

.  196 

47   . 

.  183 

7 

.  159 

vi.  2 

.  195 

16   . 

.  114,  115 

9 

.  71 

18   . 

.  174 

13   . 

.  194 

19   . 

.  140 

22   . 

.  195 

21   . 

.  85 

24   . 

.  197 

24   . 

.  64 

26   . 

.  138 

iii.  1 

.   78,  145,  199 

29   . 

.  178 

INDEX. 


213 


JOHN 

(cionti-nui'd)—          JOHN  (continued}  — 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE     CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

vi.  32 

.  46 

viii,  45   . 

.    .197 

35 

.  62,  113 

56   . 

.  '  .    .179 

37 

.    .    .62 

ix,  3 

.  178 

•39 

.    .  73,  197 

4   . 

.  100 

44 

.  62 

7  -  . 

.  143 

45 

.   62,  87 

9 

.    .    .  191 

46 

.  174 

10   . 

34  n 

50 

.  122,  138 

11   . 

.  117 

51 

.  138 

14   . 

34  n 

54-56 

.  56 

17   . 

.    .    .  174 

59 

200 

19   . 

.    .    .  191 

64 

.    .    .135 

21   . 

.  64 

65 

.    .    .62 

22   . 

33  n 

66 

.    .    .145 

25   . 

.    .128 

70 

.    .    .51 

31   . 

.  66 

vii.  2 

.  .   .    .    .85 

33&fc 

.    .114 

4 

.  .   .    .    .122 

x,  3 

.    .89 

12 

52 

4 

194,  5 

17 

.    .  71,  192 

5 

.  113^195 

22 

.  174 

12   . 

.  188,  195 

26 

.  189 

14   . 

.  195 

32 

.  88 

16   . 

89,  194,  5 

33 

100  n 

27,  28 

.   89,  195 

35 

.  174 

29   . 

.  197 

37 

62 

32,  33 

.  153 

39 

.  200 

35   . 

.   1Mb  is 

40 

84,  88 

37   . 

.  184 

41 

.  100 

xi,  1 

.  -  .    .138 

42 

100,  172,  191  n 

6 

.  168 

47 

...  190 

9 

.    .    .191 

48 

.    .    .    .  145 

14   . 

.  106 

49 

.    .    .    .  196 

18   . 

.  139 

51 

.  87 

19   . 

.  153 

52 

.  101,  190 

20   . 

.    .100 

viii,  6,  8 

.  43 

21   . 

.    .  39,  170 

9 

.  72 

31   . 

-  .  .  .    .  82 

14 

100  n 

32   . 

...  39 

20 

.  200 

33   . 

.-.•"'.  82 

21 

100  n 

38   . 

.  39 

22 

100  •»,  190 

44   . 

.  116 

25 

.  68 

49   . 

...  127 

38 

.  87 

52  . 

.  -  .    .  178 

39 

.    .    .    .114 

57 

......    .178 

40 

.  87  j   xii,  1 

.    .  153 

44 

.  .  .    .  46  1      9,  12  . 

.    .  46,  196 

214 


INDEX. 


JOHN 

(continued*)— 

JOHN 

(continued  )  — 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

xii,  15   . 

.  100 

xvi,  26   . 

.  153 

33   . 

.  200 

32   . 

.   100  Us 

40   . 

.  177 

xvii,  2,  3  . 

.  109 

42   . 

.  168 

6 

36,  54 

46   . 

.  73 

7 

36  Ms 

47   . 

SK,  89 

9 

.  54,  153 

48   . 

.  66 

10   . 

54  bis 

49   . 

.  112 

11,  l:-j 

.    .  100 

xiii.  3 

100  n 

20   . 

.  153 

10,11 

.  191 

25   . 

.  163 

18   . 

.  178 

xviii,  16   . 

.  154 

23   . 

.  154 

21   . 

.  65 

24   . 

.  112 

30   . 

.  184 

25   . 

.  154 

34   . 

.  53  n,  63 

27   . 

.  94 

37   . 

.  89,  180 

33   . 

100  n 

40   . 

.  46 

35   . 

.  54 

xix,  11   . 

.  114,  184 

36   . 

100  n 

12   . 

.  145 

xiv,  2 

.  186 

13   . 

.  88 

3 

.  100,  171 

17   . 

.  64 

4,  5  . 

100  n 

25   . 

.  161 

7 

.  170 

27,28 

.  195 

11   . 

.  186 

31   . 

194,  5 

18   . 

.  100 

32   . 

.  195 

21   . 

.  135 

42   . 

64  n 

22   . 

.  174,  191 

xx,  11,  12 

.  154 

24   . 

.  54 

22   . 

.  49 

26 

.  66 

2^ 

.  38 

28,  30 

.  100 

xxi,  2 

.  26 

31   . 

.  178 

3 

.   100  Us 

xv,  3 

.  141 

6 

.  139 

5 

.  129,  197 

18   . 

.  39 

6 

.  98 

20   . 

.  135 

8 

.  54,  178 

25   . 

.  189 

18   . 

.  94 

22   . 
24   . 

.   36,  114,  184 
.  36,  184 

ACTS. 

25   . 

.  178 

xvi.  2 

.  100 

i.  1   . 

.  168 

5,  10 

100  n 

3   . 

.  140 

13   . 

.  66 

4  . 

.  87 

15   . 

.  54 

5   . 

.    .  151 

17   . 

100  n,  145 

6   . 

.  52 

20   . 

.  143 

14  . 

.  28 

25   . 

.  100 

16  . 

76  n 

INDEX. 


215 


ACTS  (continued  )—          ACTS  (continued^)  — 

CHAP.  VEE. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

i.  18  . 

.  146 

vi,  2   . 

.  84 

24  . 

.  125 

vii.  4   . 

.  158 

ii,  10  . 

.  148 

5   . 

.  187 

12  . 

.  112 

8   . 

.  175 

18  . 

.   168  bis 

20  . 

.  81 

22  . 

.  66,  138 

21  . 

.  80 

23  . 

.  66 

34  . 

.   88,  130 

25  . 

.  34 

35  . 

.  66 

30  . 

.  121 

38  . 

.  135,  159 

33 

.  82 

40  . 

.  197 

38  . 

.  144 

42  . 

.  201 

45  . 

.  Ill 

47  . 

.  34 

iii,  1   . 

.  147 

50  . 

.  191 

2 

.  37 

viii.  4   . 

.  79 

11  . 

.  26 

7   . 

.  196 

13,  17 

.  149 

12 

.  79 

21  . 

.168 

17,  18 

.  49 

iv,  1   . 

.  58 

19  . 

.  49,  178 

5   . 

.  78,  147 

22  . 

.  181 

10  . 

65,  66,  147 

25  . 

.  79 

11  . 

.  65 

27  . 

.  126 

16  . 

.  165,  168 

30  . 

.  191 

17  , 

.   83,  130,  147 

31  . 

.  110,112,172 

18 

.  148 

35 

.  79 

20  . 

!    .    .189 

40  . 

.  79,  142 

21  . 

.  112 

ix.  1   . 

.  90 

32  . 

.  84 

A 

.  89 

33  . 

.  37 

6 

.   69,  70 

35  . 

.  37,  111  i       7   . 

75,  89.  90,  188 

v,  4   . 

.  130,  174,  191 

9   . 

.  188 

7   . 

.  162,  188 

12  . 

.  124 

9   . 

.  147,  174 

13  . 

.  88 

12 

26 

21 

135 

14  ! 

!    .  84 

26  . 

.  188 

15  . 

.  170 

31,  42 

.  148 

16  . 

.  84 

x,  3   . 

.  124 

19  . 

.  140 

14  . 

.  73 

23  . 

.  147 

17  . 

.  112 

24  . 

.  112 

19  . 

.  58 

26  . 

.  174 

22  . 

.  87 

28  . 

.  83,  130 

25  . 

.   119  bis 

31  . 

.  118 

28  . 

.  119 

32  . 

84  n  !      36  . 

.   79  bis 

36  . 

.  143        37  . 

.  77,  148 

42  . 

.79        42  . 

.  135 

216 


INDEX. 


ACTS  (continued*)  —         ACTS 

(continued')  —  - 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

x,  44,  47 

.   49 

xvi,  37 

.  172 

48  . 

.  142,  144,  147 

xvii,  2 

.  "  .    .196 

xi,  7   . 

.  89 

4 

.  84 

11  . 

.  62 

6 

.  188 

13  . 

.  124 

10 

.    .    .140 

15  . 

.  158 

11 

.  112 

18  . 

.  181 

13 

.  127 

20  . 

.  79 

18 

.  79 

28  . 

.    .120 

19 

.  91 

xii.  3  . 

.  202 

20 

.  112 

8   . 

.  114 

21 

.  94 

14  . 

.  139 

22 

.  76  ??,  94 

19  . 

.  122,  188 

23 

.  48 

xiii,  2   . 

.  158 

27 

.   80,  168,  181,  187 

10  . 

.  115 

28 

52  n,  149 

12  . 

.  125 

xviii,  14 

.    .    34  n 

13  . 

.  153 

17 

.  91 

17  . 

.  150 

21 

.  142 

22 

.  80 

xix,  1 

.    .  28 

24  '. 

.  154 

2 

.  49 

25  . 

.  70,  100 

5 

.    .    .    .  147 

32  . 

.   78,  79 

6 

.    .49 

39 

158 

22 

143 

45  . 

.  130 

27 

!  163,  189 

47  . 

.  80 

30 

.  58 

xiv,  14  . 

.  84 

35 

.  76  n,  172,  187 

15 

79 

38 

.  148 

17  . 

37,  64,  168 

xx,  4 

.  196 

21  . 

.  79 

9 

.  139 

26  . 

180 

11 

175 

xv,  5 

43  n 

18 

.    .    .  158 

6   . 

.  50 

22 

126  n 

11  . 

.  118 

24 

.    .    .  119,  175 

16  . 

.  201 

xxi,  1 

.    .    .200 

21  . 

.    .    .  126 

3 

.  179 

23  . 

.  65,  117 

4 

.  117 

27  . 

.    .127 

5 

.159 

35  . 

.    .  99 

11 

.    .    .65 

xvi,  4   . 

.   50,  173 

13 

.  142 

9   . 

.  140 

16 

82,  84 

10  . 

.  79 

17 

.  58 

16  . 

.  58 

21 

.  117 

19  . 

.  91 

28 

.    .    .163 

33  . 

.    .    .  139        30 

91 

36  . 

.    .  36  !       33 

.   91,  112,  122 

INDEX. 


217 


ACTS 

(continued}  — 

ACTS 

(continued  )  — 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGU 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

xxi.  34 

.  122 

XXV  11 

185 

36 

.   84,  196 

13 

.  126  bis 

37 

.  99 

16 

.  Ill 

xxii.  1 

.  88 

17 

.  122,  200 

5 

.  180 

21 

.  .  .    .122 

7 

36,  89 

22 

.  113,  200 

8 

.  62 

23 

.  149 

9 

75,  89,  90 

24 

.    .    .84,  112 

10 

.  62 

xxvi,  3 

.  78 

11 

.  139 

4 

33% 

14 

.  89 

7 

.  120,  121,  153 

16 

.  96 

10 

.  163 

17 

.  .  .    .  ...  68 

14 

.    .   62,  89 

21 

.  62 

15 

.  36 

22 

.  102 

18 

.  159 

24 

.  122 

22 

.  135 

25 

30 

25 

.  200 

xxiii.  3 

.  122 

32 

.  114 

4 

.  198 

xxvii.  1 

.  37 

6 

.  72 

10 

.    .    117  n,  120 

8 

.  165,  189 

12 

.  172 

9 

.  199 

18 

.  200 

14 

.  83,  130 

20 

.  187 

22 

.  62 

21 

.  168 

26 

.    .    .    .  117 

22 

.  •   .  80 

28 

.  148 

34 

154 

SO 

.  120 

37 

38 

SI 

140 

44 

147 

34 

.  138 

xxviii.  3 

.  84 

35 

.  122,200 

13 

180 

xxiv.  5 

.  129 

14 

.  175 

11 

.  126,201 

16 

30  n 

12 

.  .  .    .    .165 

17 

.    .    .    .187 

15 

.  120 

22 

.  87,168 

17 

.    .    .  126,  139 

19 

.    .    .62,  198 

KOMANS. 

25 

.  120 

26 

.  121 

i,  5 

.   .   .   .-86 

27 

,  ...  .    .    .31 

8 

168  n 

xxv,  4 

.  143 

10 

.  172 

5 

.  200 

12 

.  55 

6 

.  122 

13 

163,  4 

7 

.  58 

15 

.  79 

9 

.  31 

17 

.  86 

10 

.    .    .94 

25 

.  152 

218 


INDEX. 


ROMANS 

(continued  )  — 

ROMANS 

(continued  )  — 

CHAP.  YEB. 

P4.GE 

!   CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

i.  26   . 

,  160 

vii,  1 

.  192 

ii,  7,  8  . 

198 

5 

96 

11,  13 

.  151 

6   . 

.  189 

17   . 

.  39 

7 

50,  160,  170,  184 

19   . 

.  121 

10  . 

.  66 

23  . 

.  50 

18  . 

.  120 

26   . 

.   80,  191 

24   . 

.  85 

27  . 

.  50,  140 

viii  3 

78 

iii.  2   . 

168  n,  195 

9 

.  171,  183 

4 

.  109 

15   . 

76,  105  Us 

6 

.  172 

17   . 

.  171  Us 

8   . 

.  117 

18   . 

.  120 

12  . 

.  188 

25   . 

.  140 

13   . 

.  37 

31   . 

.  156 

20  . 

.  73 

32  . 

.  173,  191 

23   . 

95,  105  bis 

33 

148 

25,  26 

.  155 

39  . 

.  86 

27   . 

.  105,  191 

ix,  3 

.  113,  139 

29   . 

191,  2 

6 

.  66,  174 

30   . 

47,  171  bin 

8 

.   80,  195 

iv.  1 

.  96 

10   . 

.  197 

2 

.  154 

11   . 

.  199 

11   . 

.   85,  140 

14   . 

.  151 

12  . 

184,  8 

16,  18 

.  39 

13 

86 

20 

168 

16  . 

,  148 

22   '. 

!  199 

18  . 

.  120 

25   . 

.  183 

20  . 

.  125 

27   . 

.  155 

v,  5 

.  86 

29   . 

.  184 

(5 

.  171 

33   . 

.   73,  147 

7 

.  47,  112 

x,  1 

168  n 

8 

.  174 

11   . 

.  147 

11   . 

.  129 

14  . 

.  88 

12   . 

.  199 

15  . 

.  79 

13  . 

.    .  40 

16   . 

.  166 

14   . 

.  147 

18  . 

166,  8 

18   . 

.  85,  199 

19   . 

.    .    .166 

vi.  2 

.  139 

xi,  1   . 

.  105,  106 

5 

.  166 

2   . 

.  192,200 

6   . 

.  85 

4 

105,  106,  166,  200 

10   . 

.   74,  81 

6 

.  172 

16   . 

.  164 

7 

.    .105 

17   . 

.  167 

13  . 

168,  168  n 

18,  20 

.  81 

14  . 

.  172 

21  . 

168  n 

21   . 

183,  5,  190 

INDEX. 


219 


ROMANS 

(continwd)  —      1  CORINTHIANS  (conti 

nncd)  — 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

xi.  22   . 

.  172,  198 

vi.  14  ... 

.  163 

36   . 

.  75,  141 

16  ... 

.  200 

xii,  1 

.  180 

vii.  2   . 

.  72 

5   . 

.  72 

7   ... 

.  164 

6-19 

129 

9   ... 

.  185 

15  . 

.  116 

13   ... 

.  129 

xiii  12 

.  105 

14   ... 

172,  195 

xiv,  5 

.  152 

20   ... 

.  66 

9 

.  104,  163 

28   ... 

.  98 

13  . 

.  120 

29   ... 

.  88 

20  . 

.  140 

31   . 

.  78 

xv,  5 

.  108 

35   ... 

55,  62 

8   . 

.  87,  156 

37   ... 

120,  129 

23-28 

.  199 

viii.  1   ... 

.  199 

24   . 

.  175 

3   ... 

.  66 

25   . 

.  127 

4   ... 

180,  199 

xvi.  7 

.  36 

5   ... 

.  171 

13,  19 

.  55 

6   ... 

.  75 

10   ... 

.  191 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

ix.  1 

.  191 

2   .    .   166 

bis,  184 

i,  H  . 

.  96 

9   ... 

.  91 

20  . 

.191 

11   ... 

.  191 

29   . 

...  73 

12   ... 

.  55 

31   . 

.  179 

15   . 

.  145 

iii,  3   . 

.  191 

24   . 

.  175 

5 

.  166 

26   ... 

.  187 

iv.  2   . 

177,  179  n 

x.  2 

.  96 

6 

72,  107  w,  145,  156 

6   ... 

.  120 

8 

.  113 

7   ... 

.  118 

14   . 

.  188 

16   ... 

.  191 

21   . 

.  144,  160 

22  ... 

.  192 

v.  2 

.  191 

28  . 

.  159 

5 

.  85 

xi,  6 

.  185 

9 

.  189 

14  ... 

.  197 

10  . 

.  172 

18  ... 

168  n 

11   . 

.  189 

22   ... 

.  172 

12   . 

.   191  Us 

24   ... 

.  127 

vi.  1 

.  191 

34  ... 

.  175 

2   . 

.  145,  192 

xii.  2   ... 

111,  175 

3 

.  137 

6,  11  . 

.  96 

4 

.  168 

xiii-.  3   ... 

.  109 

7 

.  168,  191 

13  ... 

.  94 

9 

.   165,  192  Ms 

xiv.  5   ... 

110,  184 

10  . 

.  165 

10  ... 

.  110 

220 


INDEX. 


1  CORINTHIANS  (continued 

)— 

2  CORINTHIANS  (continued}— 

CHAP.  VEB.                     I 

AGE 

CHAP.  VEB. 

PAGE 

xiv,  11  .... 

145 

iv.  12  . 

.  96 

16  .... 

172 

16  . 

.  166 

19  .... 

92 

18   . 

.    .    .59 

25  .    ... 

175 

v.  1 

84  n 

33 

86 

3 

171  bis 

36   .... 

192 

6   . 

.  129 

XV.  1 

79 

10  . 

.  140 

2   .... 

184 

11  . 

.  121 

4   .... 

103 

14   . 

.  156 

12,  13    ... 

183 

15  . 

.  181 

15   ...   171 

bis 

16  . 

.  166 

29   . 

172 

17  . 

.  74 

35   . 

100 

19  . 

.  174 

36 

77 

vi,  9 

129,  188 

37  .    .    .  110, 

126  • 

10  . 

.'  188 

39 

73 

13 

78 

xvi.  5       .    100  «, 

199 

vii,  4 

.  156 

6,  7  . 

154 

5 

.  129 

18  .. 

55 

7 

.  55 

22   .    .    .  39, 

185 

12   . 

.  119 

15  . 

.  55 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

viii.  7   . 

.  116 

9   . 

.  128 

i,  6   .    .    55,  96, 

156 

10  . 

.  158 

7   .... 

156 

14  . 

55  bis 

8   .... 

155 

23  . 

.   54,  155 

13   ...  121, 

166 

ix.  2 

.  158 

17   .... 

151 

x.  4 

.  81 

24  .... 

174 

8 

.  160 

ii,  1   . 

120 

9 

.  174 

2   ...  114, 

163 

10   . 

.  200 

3   .    . 

66 

13,16 

.  118 

4   .    . 

140 

xi.  1 

...  34  n,  113 

5   .... 

178 

2 

.  118 

13  .... 

104 

3 

.  139 

17.  .    .    . 

188 

4 

34  )i,  114,  168  n 

iii,  1       .    .38, 

191 

.  5 

.   95,  157 

5   .... 

174 

6 

.  166 

8   .... 

191 

7 

.  79,  192 

11   . 

140 

16  . 

.  170 

13   .... 

120 

21   . 

.  174 

15   .... 

159 

23  . 

.    .157 

18   .... 

83 

24 

.  157 

iv.  8,  9  .    .    .  188 

bis 

25   . 

.  104 

11   ... 

114 

28  . 

...    .77 

INDEX. 


221 


2  CORINTHIANS  (continued  )  — 

GALATIANS  (continued*)— 

CHAP.  TEE. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  TER. 

P1GE 

xii.  1,  3  . 

.  184 

iv,  13  ... 

79,  140 

7 

.  45 

15    ... 

114,  170 

8   . 

.  156 

17   . 

107  n 

9 

.  104 

20   ... 

.  113 

11   . 

95,  157,  183 

24   .    . 

.  72 

12   . 

165,  168  n 

27   . 

.  183 

19   . 

55,  65 

30  . 

.  113 

21   . 

.  124,  165 

v,  6   . 

74,  96 

xiii.  1   .    . 

.  100 

12   . 

.  113 

4 

166 

13 

140 

5 

63  n 

vi.  10  . 

.  181 

6 

.  121 

12   .    . 

.  109 

Q 

55 

V     .      . 

EPHESIANS. 

GALATIANS. 

i,  11   . 

.  96 

13  . 

.  88 

i.  1   . 

.  141 

17  ... 

.  108 

8,9,11,  16 

.  79 

20  . 

96,  129 

18  . 

.  154 

23   .. 

.  96 

23   . 

79,  128  n,  135 

ii,  2 

.  96 

ii,  1 

.  .  .  139 

3   ... 

.  38 

2 

114,  149,  190 

•5,  8  . 

22 

4 

.  109 

10   . 

.  55 

5 

.  154 

13   ... 

.  128 

8 

.  96 

14   . 

.  61 

9,  10  . 

.  178 

15   ... 

.  83 

11   . 

.  129,  149 

17   ... 

.  79 

13 

.  175 

19   ... 

'  181 

16   . 

73 

iii,  2   ... 

.  171 

17   . 

.  191 

8   .    .    32 

,  79,  120 

20   . 

.  86 

19   . 

.  160 

21   . 

.  170 

20   . 

96,  160 

iii.  2 

.  49 

iv.  6 

.  75 

4 

.  171 

11   ... 

.  52 

5   . 

.  96 

12   ... 

.  155 

7 

.  66 

21  ... 

88,  171 

13  . 

.  125,  156 

22,  25 

.  121 

17   . 

.  125 

29   ... 

.  73 

23   . 

.  120 

v,  4 

102,  184 

28   . 

.  74 

5   ... 

33  n,  73 

iv.  3 

.  38,  135 

6   ... 

.  100 

6 

.  76 

27   ... 

.  178 

7 

.  141 

33   ... 

.  116 

8 

.  187 

vi.9 

.  151 

11   . 

114,  174,  190 

18,  19 

.  152 

222 


INDEX. 


PHILIPPIANS. 

COLOSSIANS  (continued}— 

CHAP.  VEB. 

i,  1 

PAGE 

150  n 

CHA.P.  VE 

iii.  15 

H.                     PAG-E 

.  87 

18   ... 

166,1172 

18 

.  102 

19   ... 

.  55 

iv,  6 

.  118 

22   ... 
25   ... 

.  119 
.  55 

1  THESSALONIANS. 

29   . 

.  120 

i.  3 

r   .    .  84,  5,  90 

ii,  7   . 

.  125 

5 

.  158 

13   ... 

96,  156 

ii.  7 

.  174 

23   ... 

.  175 

9 

.  90 

27   ... 

.  147 

11 

,12   .    .    .129 

30   .    ... 

55,  84  n 

13 

.  96 

iii,  3   ... 

.  188 

18 

163,  168  n 

8   ... 

.  166 

19 

191,  2 

9   ... 

.  54 

iii,  5 

.  114,  143,  190 

11   ... 

.  172 

6 

.    .    .79 

12   ... 

105,  174 

7 

.  55,  174 

13   ... 

90,  121 

8 

.  Ill 

1(5   ... 

.  116 

10 

.  160 

18,  19 

77,  198 

iv.  3, 

4,  6   .    .    .120 

20   ... 

.  55 

16 

.  144 

iv.  7 

.  87 

17 

.  175 

10   ... 

.  118 

v.  2 

.  100 

11   ... 

.  174 

4 

.  177 

12   ... 

.  163 

5 

.  86 

6 

.  181 

COLOSSIANS. 

10  .    .    .    .110 
11   .    .    .    .72 

i.  8   . 

.  55 

13 

.  130,  160 

13 

85 

2 

THESSALONIAKS. 

16   ... 

.  141 

17   ... 

.  61 

i,  4 

.  62 

21   ... 

.  128 

6 

.  171 

22   ... 

.  118 

7 

.  85 

23   ... 

88,  171 

ii,  1 

.  43  n,  156 

26   . 

.  129 

2 

.  174 

29   ... 

.  96 

7 

.  96 

ii.  1 

.  36 

13 

36,  86 

5   ... 

.  166 

15 

.  181 

8   ... 

.  109 

iii,  6 

.  36 

U   . 

.  82 

9 

178  n 

19   ... 

.  187 

10 

.  117,  122,  185 

20   ... 

.  139 

12 

.  122 

23   ... 

168  n 

14 

.  66,  185 

iii,  6   ... 

.  100 

16 

.    .    .    .108 

INDEX. 


223 


1  TIMOTHY. 

nsii&JU.£ 

CHAP.  VER. 

HAP.  VEB 

PAGE 

ii.  7 

i,  7 

.  67,  107  >/,  165 

10 

13 

.  128 

15 

16 

.  147 

iii,  3 

ii.  8 

.  32 

6 

9 

.  158 

7 

15 

.  195 

11 

iii,  5 

.  183 

12 

14 

.  94 

15 

v,  7 

.  122 

16 

8 

.  183 

17 

13 

.  32 

18 

19 

.  158,  184 

iv.  1 

25 

.  194 

2 

vi,  3 

.  184 

3 

5 

.  43 

6 

7 

2  TIMOTHY. 

12 

i.  13 

87  Ms 

v,  5 

16 

.  34,  108 

7 

18 

.   94,  108 

vi.  3 

ii,  2 

.  87 

4,  5 

14 

.  147,  189 

10 

25 

.  108,  189 

13 

14 

TITUS. 

16 

i,  11 

.  186 

vii.  1 

12 

.  32 

5 

ii,  2 

.  117 

9 

4 

.  109 

11 

13 

.  50 

27 

viii.  5 

PHILEMON. 

8 

5 

.  87,  155 

10 

10 

.  78 

ix,  1 

13 

.  156 

3 

18 

.  40 

4 

19 

.  178 

8 

22 

.  121 

12 

17 

HEBREWS. 

22 

i.  2 

.141 

25 

3 

.  85 

26 

5 

.   143  Ms 

x.  2 

14 

.  191 

16 

PAGE 

.  93 

.  125,  141 
.  140 
.  93 
.  171 

.88,9,  171 
.  192 
.  109 

88,  9,  171 
.  166 
.  191 
.  121 
.  95 
.  79 
.  168 
.  79 
88,  9 
.  93 
.  118 
.  139 
.  171 
.  87 

.  90,  118 
.  148 

.  130,  193 
.  148 
.  129 
.  29 

29,  119,  175 

26,  168,  189 

.  159 

.  200 

.  100,  162 
.  129 
.  168 
.  151 
.  26 
.  189 

36,  96,  140 

.  182,  189 
.  144 
.  146 
.  172 
.  172 
.  129 


224 


INDEX. 


CHAP.  VER. 

x,  22 
25 

28 
34 
39 
xi,  1 
4 
9 

17 
19 
28 
35 

xii,  7 
15 
17 
18 
19 
24 
25 

xiii.  2 
5 
13 
16 
17 


JAMES. 


i,  1 

13  . 

17  . 

19  . 

24  . 

25  . 
27  . 

ii,  5 

10  . 

11  . 

12  . 
iii,  2 

8 

12,  14 

15  . 
iv>  2,  3   . 
5 

13  . 
15 


mic.d)  — 

JAMES 

(continued)  — 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

.  35 

V.  4 

.   36,  138 

43% 

7 

.  201 

.  158 

12   . 

.  39,  148 

35  n 

16   . 

.  96 

.  86 

17   . 

83,  130 

..    .  187 

.  93 

1 

PETER. 

.  142 

i.  8   , 

.  167,  187 

104,  106  n 

11   . 

.  158 

.  180 

12   . 

.  79 

.  104 

2S 

.  187 

25   . 

.  79 

.  187 

ii,  3   . 

.  171 

.  95 

10  . 

.  124,  183 

33  n 

14  . 

.  167 

.  129,  199 

17  . 

.  114 

,   31,  89 

18   . 

.  129 

.  93 

iii.  1 

.  129 

183,  5 

3 

.  189 

.  90 

8,  9  . 

.  129 

.  129 

14   . 

.  110 

.  181 

15   . 

.  165 

.  90 

17   . 

.  110 

.  126 

18   . 

.  153 

iv,  6 

.  79 

8,  10 

.129 

117 

.  138 

2 

PETER. 

.  151 

i.  1 

.  50 

33  n 

5 

66 

.  104 

9 

.  186 

.  84 

18   . 

,  89 

.  120 

ii.  4 

.   183  bis,  185 

.  81 

6,  10. 

.  85 

.  110 

21   . 

.  189 

.  184 

iii.  2 

.  118 

.  175 

4 

.  201 

66 

!  77 

1 

JOHN. 

.  165 

i.  2 

.  154 

.  188 

3,  4  . 

...  49 

.  95 

5 

.    .  88 

.  192 

ii.  1 

.  154 

.  65 

12   . 

.  38 

.  137 

18   . 

.  100,  180 

INDEX. 


225 


1  JOHN  (continued)  — 


REVELATION  (continued)— 


CHAP.  VEE. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

ii.  19   ... 

.  170 

i.  19  . 

.  194 

21   ... 

.  73 

ii.  2 

.  129 

24   ... 

.  197 

3,  4  . 

.  37 

25   ... 

.  78 

5 

37,  81,  100,  186 

27   ... 

.  197 

7 

.  39,  138 

28   ... 

.  171 

9 

.  121,  129 

iii.  2   ... 

.  171 

10  . 

.  145 

10   ... 

.  195 

13  . 

.  54 

15  ... 

.  73 

14   . 

.  80 

21  ... 

.  61 

16  81, 

100,  144,  150,  186 

iv.  1 

,  195 

17  . 

.  39 

3   ... 

.  100 

18  . 

.129 

13   ... 

61,  138 

20  . 

38,  77 

15   ... 

.  61 

iii.  2 

.  120,  194 

17   ... 

.  179 

8   . 

.  59 

v,  6 

.  140 

9   . 

.   40,  174 

14,  16 

.  95 

11  . 

.  100 

15   ... 

95,  110 

15  . 

.   39,  113 

20   ... 

109,  178 

16  . 

.    .120 

20  . 

61,  89,  147 

2  JOHN. 

iv.  1 

.  34  n,  89 

2 

.  1?9 

2 

.  147 

4 
6   ... 
10  ... 

84,  145 
178  bi* 
.  183 

9 
10  . 
11   . 

.  Ill,  147 
.  147 
.  141 

v.  7 

.104 

3  JOHN. 

9 

.  144 

10  . 

.  147 

2,  3  .   . 

55  n,  56 

11   . 

.  89 

4   ... 

32,  178 

vi.  1 

34  n 

6 

55  n 

2,  4,  5 

42  •/* 

10   ... 

.  165 

6,  7  . 

.  89 

JUDE. 

8 
16   . 

.  42^,51,157 

'  .        36  n 

4    ... 

.  31 

vii.  2 

.  59 

14   ... 

35  n 

7 

.  29 

22,  23 

.  39 

9 

.  59,  198 

REVELATION. 

14   . 

17  . 

.  104 

84^ 

i.  5 

77,  144 

viii.  1 

.  Ill 

7   ... 

,  100 

4 

.  81 

10  ... 

.  89 

5 

.  104 

13   ... 

.  154 

6 

.  64 

14-16 

.  54 

11   . 

.  51,  143 

18   ... 

.  104 

12  . 

.  38 

15 

226  INDEX, 


RKVELATION 

(continvcdy  — 

REVELATION 

(continued  )  — 

CHAP.  VER. 

PAGE 

CHAP.  VEK. 

PAG-K 

viii.  13   . 

.   71,  145 

xvi.  10,  11 

.  145 

ix.  4 

.   73,  189 

15   . 

.  100 

11   . 

.  64 

18   . 

.  59 

12   . 

.  100 

20   . 

.  194 

IP) 

89 

xvii.  7 

64 

x.  4 

.  89 

8 

!    .    !  135 

7 

79,  98,  161 

9 

59,  179  n 

xi.  7-11  . 

.  98 

11   . 

.  61 

0 

.   •  .    .38 

14   . 

.  -  .  150 

12   . 

.  89 

xviii.  4 

.  89 

14   . 

.  100 

12,  13 

.  198 

xii.  4 

.  121 

21   . 

.  71 

(i 

.  59,  139  ' 

23  . 

.  38 

7 

.  119,  150 

xix.  1 

.  89 

'.* 

.  51 

'A 

.  36 

10   . 

.  89 

6 

.  89 

11   . 

.  142 

10   . 

.  36 

14   . 

.   59,  91 

11   . 

.  147 

84 

13 

35,  51 

4 

.   80,  150 

14   ! 

.  147 

8 

.  80 

15   . 

,.  61 

10   . 

179  n 

17   . 

.  71 

12   . 

.  59 

18,  20 

.    .    .147 

14   . 

.  v  .    .142 

xx,  2 

51  Us 

15   . 

.  177 

7-9  . 

.  98 

18   . 

179  n 

8 

.  .  .    .59 

xiv.  2 

89  UK 

xxi.  3 

.  89 

(') 

.  79 

6 

.  36 

9 

.   •  .    .147 

8 

.  128 

10   . 

.   61,  162 

21   . 

.  72,  137 

12   . 

179  n 

xxii,  2 

.  40 

1:5  . 

.  89,  179 

7 

.  100 

n  . 

.  61 

8 

.  89 

19   . 

.  91 

12   . 

.  100 

xv.  2 

.   39,  146 

18  .' 

.  89 

xvi.  1 

.  89 

20   . 

.  100 

Printed  by  Hazell,  Watson,  &  Viney,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylesbury. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


NOV  24 


RE<rtn~D 

AUG    •>  «-&» 


2'69-UAV! 


3G0200 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


